Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

reply to post by brewing


The world isn't that simple my friend...

reply to post by pshea38


I don't know how legit that vid is but it is interesting to say the least.

While I am glad to see all of the high-profile individuals bringing their views out into the open for us to discuss, I still think that the "smoking-gun" so to speak will come when an actual "insider" admits that the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 were in fact of the false-flag variety.

I mean it's all well and good that these people are speaking their mind, but despite their credentials, they aren't the people who actually "know" what happened. Although their speculation may be correct, I really wish there were more than circumstantial evidence, because I believe that is the only way anyone will ever be prosecuted for this tragedy...and ultimately that is all what we want to see. Could you imagine if it finally came out, and was proven, that the former President was involved in staging this attack on American soil? He could probably be put to death for treason! While it probably will never happen, as someone else's head will roll if need be, it is a very vague possibility.

Does anyone know if there are any current pursuits of this matter in any courts? I know there are organizations that hold adamantly, professing that the attack was staged, but are they doing all they can? I know that probably isn't much however, which is a shame.

I wonder if we will get to a tipping point where one person high enough in government will confess, or there is enough evidence to prosecute them for their part in 9/11 which will ultimately lead to a flood of the guilty actually facing the charges in my book they should be facing.

I was disappointed that the M15 man didn't wax lyrical also about the London bombings. (I hoped he might have heard something through an ex colleague). I can't get past the warning before the explosion s to the Israeli Embassy by Scotland Yard, in fact who warned them? I felt like a dive through an Islamic site which confirmed what I had heard whispered that (islamic-intelligence.blogspot.com...) Netanyahu was in London at the time. Can't help wondering if Scotland Yard warned any other Embassies in London I have put the link in but its more about the London Bombings

I

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Not just to you but a general point about the standing of the forming agent, I know from heresay that Shayler does not have any credibility with the media and his views are readily discounted.

I don't think he is the guy to pin any hopes on because he is not seen as credible - it's a shame really, it's like the boy who cried wolf - except all along he was telling the truth and now no one believes anything the guy says - a case of attacking the messenger and not the message. But there it is, Shayler is not seen as credible so everything he says is discounted as fantasy

Peace

Y'know, even if the Guy has issues, what He says does NOT conflict with evidence, and makes more sense than the OS by far, especially when taken as a whole. One is a fool to take many sources and hack each one down on a personal basis to maintain One's view of how things OUGHT to be.

If He was the only One, crying these things, I'd say, "Meh. Whatever." But the pattern has been that We are being told it was an inside job based on knowledge and conservative conjecture. As soon as They announced that the towers collapsed on their own, I knew something was very wrong, and I watched the infosphere closely. There was a link to a news story in the couple of weeks after 9/11 about a gas station/convenience store where the People were watching what the camera caught of the pentagon, and that They said it was a missile. The FBI swooped in and took the tape, of course. I was there. I read the article. But that's long gone now, though I did hear a brief comment about witnesses being harassed...and then nothing.

Anyway, I expected Them to concoct a story about being infiltrated and then remotely detonated. No... The buildings fell on their own because of the planes, and it was 19 Arabs with an ex-CIA agent behi...Wait, wait, wait. What?

I am aghast at People's gullibility.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
does no planes cover the Pentagon too. I agree with the towers, planes were used but I thought the jury was out on the other two sites or did I miss the meeting so to speak?

I was talking strictly about the towers.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thanks for the answer, this is half the problem with 9/11 conspiracies in that the language is very not clear. The biggest issue is the blanketing of the term conspiracy theory with crazzzy wackos, at least on ATS we have the opportunity to counter point MSM mis-truths.

Peace

The thing about David Shayler is, that he ( nor his cohort Annie Machon ) were with the Services during 9/11. Everything they spout is freely available on the internet and not part of their own investigation. I remember seeing Annie charismatically speak of the 'puts' placed on airlines before 9/11 like it was a direct indication of foreknowledge. She obviously never hear of Put Options before 9/11. All they are doing is trying to lend credence to stories with the fact that they were once with the Security Services. What other means of income do they have besides conspiracy theories and that fact ??

Originally posted by NightGypsy
I wish these whistleblowers would stay the hell away from the Alex Jones bunch.

Whats wrong with Alex Jones? Personally I find him difficult to listen to, but he has a studio, where you can talk to an audience.

The facts have been around for a long time. Its about what you WANT to believe. Its like with the theory of evolution. A radical christian/jew who sees it as a threat to his believes is not going to look into the evidence to begin with.

Originally posted by 13star
The thing about David Shayler is, that he ( nor his cohort Annie Machon ) were with the Services during 9/11. Everything they spout is freely available on the internet and not part of their own investigation. I remember seeing Annie charismatically speak of the 'puts' placed on airlines before 9/11 like it was a direct indication of foreknowledge. She obviously never hear of Put Options before 9/11. All they are doing is trying to lend credence to stories with the fact that they were once with the Security Services. What other means of income do they have besides conspiracy theories and that fact ??

Um... Except that there was an EXTREMELY anomalous set of puts in the days before 9/11 ONLY on the two airlines involved. Whether One knows about puts or not, that there were such incredibly large and anomalous trades just before the incident, surely LOOKS like someOne had a clue...

I know that the profits from those puts had not been claimed a few years ago. I wonder if that is still true...

reply to post by Amaterasu


I don't think it's that unusual. There's few things as predictable as airline stock at the end of summer, it's easy to see what happened a few days before and say it's a big hike, but unless you see entire years puts and indeed the years before to compare, it's a just snippet of information. You can't show 3 days of market trade and call it evidence of foreknowledge.

Oh this guy is a real peach.

From the Mail online.

Today the 43-year-old has become a squatter - and yesterday showed off his 'alter ego' as he dressed as a transvestite complete with false breasts, mini-skirt and ginger wig.
In recent weeks friends and family of the former spy believe he has suffered a 'severe breakdown' after first calling himself 'The Messiah' and moving into an empty farmhouse in the Surrey countryside.
He now sees nothing wrong in dressing as a woman whom he calls 'Delores Kane' and declares that the 'world will end in 2012'.

quote]

Wouldn't you like to have him as your defense witness at your trial?

Originally posted by 13star
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I don't think it's that unusual. There's few things as predictable as airline stock at the end of summer, it's easy to see what happened a few days before and say it's a big hike, but unless you see entire years puts and indeed the years before to compare, it's a just snippet of information. You can't show 3 days of market trade and call it evidence of foreknowledge.

Um... In order to determine "anomalous" behavior, One checks past history. The fact that precisely the two airlines that were involved in the 9/11 hoax received markedly higher puts - compared with general trends - when such behavior is ANOMALOUS, is either yet another "coincidence" regarding that event (making the likelihood that the OS was as They say, about 1,000,000,000,000 to one...) or an easily understood event given a foreknowledge (and offering a 1:1 probability assuming inside job).

And WHO collected those funds? Are they still sitting there waiting for their "rightful" owner? If they are...heh. THAT bespeaks even more of "inside job."

reply to post by Amaterasu

Um... Except that there was an EXTREMELY anomalous set of puts in the days before 9/11 ONLY on the two airlines involved. Whether One knows about puts or not, that there were such incredibly large and anomalous trades just before the incident, surely LOOKS like someOne had a clue...

I don't know why people don't do a little web checking on their own. This is old news and has been debunked before. Time and time again. Time and time and time again.Ad anusium ! This makes good fodder for the first go around but it’s been out for TEN YEARS! And it WAS investigated by the proper authorities.

Do you want to know why there will never be a trial?

It’s because the OS is essentially correct. There might be a few details that don’t make sense to the unknowledgeable , but that doesn’t mean there is some big hidden conspiracy.

People on here keep rehashing the same old crap. You had better come up with something new because these old stories are getting you no where.

For those of you who are just too lazy or prefer to sit back and wallow conspiracy cesspool, here's a c&p from another website about the puts.

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Do you want to know why there will never be a trial?

It’s because the OS is essentially correct. There might be a few details that don’t make sense to the unknowledgeable , but that doesn’t mean there is some big hidden conspiracy.

[smile] I'm sure You're comfortable in Your views. Enjoy that comfort, then.

People on here keep rehashing the same old crap. You had better come up with something new because these old stories are getting you no where.

You are aware that "something new" relative to that day specifically would have to be something deliberately hidden, right?

I just laugh when People suggest the OS is "essentially correct." I wonder if They understand probability. MANY things occurred that day that were HIGHLY improbable if the OS is true - to the point that the overall probability of things happening as they did from the OS standpoint is well over 1,000,000,000 to one. If, however, one takes the supposition that it was an inside job, these "anomalous" things land in the ball park of 1:1.

But being comfortable is the important thing. Please let no contemplation of the probabilities shift You from that warm and happy spot.

EDIT to add: I would appreciate links to any "debunking" You can provide. I have watched the whole affair (9/11 and its aftermath) closely and to My awareness, no such "debunking" ever took place. Thanks.

Originally posted by samkent
For those of you who are just too lazy or prefer to sit back and wallow conspiracy cesspool, here's a c&p from another website about the puts.

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

You are aware that you should source? Claiming this is from some site and then leaving it at that is a no-no on ATS.

WHO is this "single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda?" If We approach as if it were an inside job, "ties to al Qaeda" are moot. Who IS this "single U.S.-based institutional investor" and who does (S)He know?

WHAT "U.S.-based options trading newsletter?" Presuming an inside job, could this "U.S.-based options trading newsletter" have affiliations with the gang that was in the whitehouse?

Frankly, in so many ways this is a fail. Debunked? No dear, this is a mirage of "nothing to see here, move along" covering (poorly) a very fishy event. (And nowhere does it deny the puts were highly anomalous - in fact... Because They had to scramble to hide the truth just proves how anomalous the puts were.)

reply to post by Amaterasu


Please don’t feign ignorance.

A Google search of the first 6 words yields 32,000 results.

It’s this turning a blind eye to the facts is why you believe in these silly ideas.

But don’t feel bad, you are just the latest of the gullible that have fallen into the cesspool of the 911 conspirators. There have been many before you and there will be a few more after you.

reply to post by torontoguy123


David Shayler is a little nutty. Read about how he became MI5. Not your traditional kind. He also denies 7/7 happened at all and believes the twin towers were toppled by missiles disguised as planes with holograms.

He is just out there to make conspiracy theorists look nuttier. I actually just read a chapter on him in a book.