David Shayler's "Sky News" Gig

Former MI5 officer David Shayler was on Rupert Murdoch's UK-based Sky News cable television channel for a solid 1/2 hour on the evening of Tuesday, December 7th, 2006. (Video links here, and here.)

I want to thank Shayler for hijacking the opinion segment that he was featured in, which was supposed to be largely about the assassination of Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko via polonium poisoning.

British and US media have been in an awful hurry to blame Putin for the assassination, but frankly, anyone with the dough can get a toxic quantity of polonium together, quite legally.

So, Shayler was definitely on-track when he insinuates that Litvinenko was more than likely taken out not by a vindictive FSB, but by agents friendly to the Western oligarchical elite, intent on silencing False Flag whistleblowers, and especially ones like Litvinenko, who know what it is, that they are talking about. (Litvinenko is known for exposing the Russian Federal Security Service as a player in acts of synthetic terror.)

Shayler then quickly moves the ball upfield, referencing Litvinenko's assassination as an ironic example of False Flag activity which he uses as a pivot point to tie in 9/11, possibly 7/7, and other terrorist acts as further examples of manufactured terror. He deftly rattles off a host of 9/11 anomalies which would surely make someone hearing them for the first time at least raise an eyebrow, and maybe even type a few keywords into a web search engine. He is bold enough to pin 9/11 on the US establishment, rapidly humming through the PNAC foreshadowing from memory.

(Continued below)

On the flagship evening primetime broadcast of Sky News, Martin Stanford has the potential to reach millions of people in the UK and Europe. I'm going to guess and say that the viewship is roughly similar to FOX News, but perhaps I'm being too generous. Still, I'm saying hundreds of thousands, if not millions of viewers. Let's say 25% of them have been living under a rock and don't know diddly about 9/11 skepticism.

Stanford brings up the airplanes which struck the Twin Towers, and the conversation veers into comments about the lack of full-on Federal aircrash investigations regarding the four allegedly hijacked airplanes of 9/11. Because of this, Shayler goes on to say that there is no evidence that the specific American or United flights hit the Towers. Fair enough, maybe "official evidence" may have been more accurate.

And then at the 9:06 mark;

STANFORD: Well, what is the video that we know and show...

SHAYLER: ...well I would say to anybody, slow that video down and make your own conclusion about what is going on there.

Say what?

Excuse me, David, but you're {{--LIVE--}} on international TV... could you possibly grasp for something just a little more esoteric? A bit more dodgy? Something perhaps just a bit more... I don't know, divisive, useless and questionable? Just checking.

Shayler pulls up from his nose-dive, turning disaster into a valiant loop-de-loop, mentioning the lack of a comprehensive forensic examination of the WTC steel, and the improbable collapse of WTC7. Bravo!

Then, at the 27:00 mark, Shayler pisses away one entire minute of primetime television. The going rate for an ad during this time is around $5,000 US. The cost of airing a highly produced infotainment news program like Stanford's show has to be significantly more;

STANFORD: ...I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself... but the shot... the iconic shot which is emblazoned in all our minds, those of us that were around that day, and were reporting that day, of planes hitting the tower... how do you explain that?

SHAYLER: Well I would say to anybody, look at that footage, slow it down, and come to your own conclusions. I very firmly believe that what you're seeing there is not consistent with a plane going into a building, but people have got to make their own minds up.


STANFORD: I'm sorry, I don't understand that. What do you mean? There was a plane or there was not a plane?

SHAYLER: I would say to people, look at the footage, yeah? From all the angles, and see how that plane goes into the building.

STANFORD: Every angle shows an aeroplane, hitting the building.

SHAYLER: It shows an aeroplane-- it shows SOMETHING... melting into a building. Not hitting a building.

When you have a plane hitting a building like that you expect to see the wings start to fracture, you expect to see explosions when the engines, full of fuel, hit the buldings. You expect to see blowbacks of parts coming back off the building.

When you slow it down, you see a plane melt into the building, then you see the explosion once it's inside.


(4 seconds --$333.33 in advertising dollars-- gone forever.)


STANFORD: You ha-- You'll be aware of the offense some people will take...

SHAYLER: I'm trying to get the truth...

Take a stopwatch or a clock, and talk for a minute. Talk about anything.

Now imagine yourself being broadcast to millions, and you have the floor to bust out some damn juicy shizzle, Re: 9/11. You could talk about the insider trading on American and United prior to 9/11, you could mention Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Professor Steven Jones, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (such as it is), 911truth.org, wtc7.net, infowars.com, Barrie Zwicker... hell, pick a random 9/11 website and friggin' plug it... you could talk about Nafeez Ahmed's outstanding research into the milieu of the ISI/CIA/Mujahadin... there's lots of stuff to talk about...

Or, you can piss it all away trying to convince Martin Stanford that you aren't fully cracked. Go ahead, think on it for a minute. (Have a good look at the bloke sitting next to Shayler who can't f'n believe the load of bollocks pouring out of Shayler's mouth.)

Now consider what Jonathan Margolis (the bloke in question) had to say at the 12:46 mark;

MARGOLIS: There's a saying in Yorkshire where I used to work, "Them that believe nought, will believe ought." ... in other words if you take someone that is routinely skeptical about everything, you can actually sell them anything.

Now if I went out... tomorrow, and started a theory that David Shayler is actually... is one of THEM, he's not really departed from-- he's still part of MI6, SIS, and that he's been put amongst us to spread a CRAZY conspiracy theory about 9/11 and 7/7... in order to discredit the right-thinking people that are beginning to have their doubts... so if you are a farmer in Ohio, and you are beginning to think, "Well, it could be. Could all have been a plot by the government," then, I can say, "well look, at how nutty, these guys are..." and so you can discredit them.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you're running this campaign as a current intelligence officer, but I'm saying that if I put that out there, I would get believers within a week.


Well, I'll probably never have the opportunity to transmit 9/11 skepticism to millions of people in one shot, on television, with a relatively benign host, so it's easy for someone like myself to play Monday Morning Quarterback and criticize Shayler's performance.

However, I do hope that Shayler does what he suggests that others do; look at ALL the angles of planes hitting the towers, yeah?

Then carefully consider your position, sir, and what it is, exactly, that you are doing.

Consider your profile, and the opportunities that will continue to come your way, and then for the love of the Lamb, let Annie do the talking.


Excellent write up dude!

Excellent write up dude!

In fact front page this man!

In fact front page this man! Shayler was on Alex Jones' show today, just listening to the mp3 now;


I don't know if AJ questions Shayler about this, haven’t heard the whole thing yet, but the prisonplanet guys do read this blog and they need to be aware of the disinfo bullshit Shayler has been pushing for a while now.

David Shayler;

David Shayler;

"Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, fuck it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says."


If people can't see anymore this is to discredit 9/11 truth

they are fucking retarded seriously.

Reprehenser, Are you the


Are you the same Reprehenser as the one who posts on the Randi Rhodes Message Board? If so, did you hear her third hour yesterday? She spent a good while talking about 9/11, including NORAD, the collapse of the WTC, WTC7, the destroyed tapes, etc.

She has dealt with the subject before (having Paul Thompson on, recommending Press for Truth, etc.), but I haven't heard such direct talk in a while.

Re: Shayler -- I hope he soon stops imbibing whatever he's imbibing. He has provided good context in his previous incarnation. Annie should Nancy Reagan him.

Shayler is no longer useful

Shayler is no longer useful to us. He should not be included on 9/11 Truth conferences in the future. Put him out with the trash (Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds).

Why do you think Fetzer and Shayler get invited on these cable news programs? Because they promote lunacy (like NPT). Why do people such as David Ray Griffin or Paul Thompson not get invited? Because they are moderate voices.

no doubt!


I have to agree and disagree

While I think any exposure for 9-11 issues is good, especially one that reaches a wide audience with a range of different opinions, I don't think it's fair to criticize Shayler for some offhanded comments.

95% of his information was accurate and well presented. Granted, he hijacked the conversation and that was impolite in some ways. But it's an important issue, and particularly if you don't know anything about it.

I have no idea how much the other dude knows about 9-11, and he didn't offer much commentary, other than (from what I understood) he believes the govnernment fairy tale. Of course there was the obligatory moon landing/princess diana/UFOs reference. That one always is good for a laugh - sorry a "good chuckle" as they say over there.

Overall I think this is a very positive piece, even if the plane info is relatively controversial and tangential information.

I hear what you're saying,

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think at this late stage just "any" exposure is good exposure. Maybe two years ago, if Shayler were the only Truther to get on TV, I would have agreed; but there is a pattern here, and it includes burying disinfo (like NPT) inside a handful of credible skepticism.

If Shayler had appeared on TV saying nothing but, "There were no planes," he would be too easy to dismiss as a crackpot. But quality disinfo doesn't seem to operate that way. It slips out of an otherwise sensible conversation.

It's similar to the way in which cable news personalities always ask Dylan Avery about "No Plane At The Pentagon" first. The follow-up question is always, "Then where are the passengers?" It doesn't matter if Dylan is right: That moment is the end of the interview, as far as CNN's viewers are concerned. So, he doesn't get to show the less contentious claims about explosives in WTC, something Loose Change tends to get right. No video of WTC7 on CNN. They'd much rather show the Pentagon in ruins, and some twentysomething with a casual demeanor talking about "switching planes" and "Operation Northwoods". At that point, it doesn't even matter if Dylan is right.

Imagine how it would look, for example, if you were listening to an engineer explain the collapse of the towers, and then he punctuated his explanation with the statement, "And at this point, the collapse is aided by Jesus Christ and his magical pixie dust." You probably won't remember whatever preceded that.

Shayler is expendable, as far as I'm concerned.

Overall I think you're right

and I was coming at it from the point of view of someone completely outside our frame of reference.

As far as academic symposiums, citing sources and so forth, it's definitely important to be critical of Shayler. I agree 100%.

I'll still maintain my position that exposure is a good thing, because we can't take for granted that there are still a lot of people that aren't framed in the basic arguments like we are.

But you're point is important for anyone who's done research and think our two positions are not mutually exlusive. It would become an issue if this Shayler guy really starts pushing the no-planes talk, and there is a wider televised debate being framed.

Top notch

Adding in the quote that DBLS provided throws this situation into severe perspective.

Shayler on SKY, Reynolds and Fetzer on FOX...

Murdoch - News Corp.

Murdoch - News Corp.

Show "What was wrong with what Shayler said?" by Killtown

Entire show on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1A783RH0SQ - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJCiW2l1XGY - Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ryFXP6v0qk - Part 3


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Show "Rep, you really have no room to talk about Shayler" by Killtown


Shayler is disinfo because he led listeners down a path that has increased probability of being detrimental to the 9/11 truth movement. We already know what didn't happen and show the government to have lied. Why would anybody intentionally mislead. And undermine?

These are very telling behaviors on the part of Shayler.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Show "What did Shayler say on that show that was wrong" by Killtown

NPT = Disinformation Those

NPT = Disinformation

Those that promote NPT are agents of disinformation.

"The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,"

Why are they (me) disinfo agents?

You haters never seem to explain your unfounded claims.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

I was talking about Shayler,

I was talking about Shayler, and replying to your question.

You can believe what ever you want to believe, but for every choice there are consequences, you know cause and effect.  If you don't believe NPT is disinformation, thats fine with me. 

You were talking about me too

"Those that promote NPT are agents of disinformation."

So explain your claim.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

TV-FAKERY (aka No-Planes) is based on the Laws of Physics

imgstacke is harming the Truth Movement by discouraging people from looking at the evidence. Just because he can't understand the evidence does not mean the theory is false. On the contrary, TV-Fakery is based on the Laws of Physics, and has NOT been refuted. An aluminum airplane cannot and will not glide through structural steel columns and slabs of steel reinforced concrete like it glides through the air.


To think an airplane can do that is absurd and a sign of brainwashing (i.e. too many sci-fi movies and video games)


Don't fall for someone discouraging you from looking at evidence!

Shayler and disinfo....

"SHAYLER: Well I would say to anybody, look at that footage, slow it down, and come to your own conclusions. I very firmly believe that what you're seeing there is not consistent with a plane going into a building, but people have got to make their own minds up."

Killtown, you may prefer an argument, like the one implied here, in which an fanciful and unprovable - and so far, poorly argued- position is inserted to set up 9/11 for ridicule. When a few of the older 9/11 activists begin to insert handholds for the government to ridicule 9/11 truth a reaonable inquiry is to wonder why.

Why do something that will increase the chances that no independent, scientific formal investigation will be initiated? Aside from possible explanations such as incredible opacity, egos... and egos... there is but one explanation. Oh, I suppose somebody like Fetzer could have a tinge of delusional disorder coupled with OCD that leads him to do very rash acts...that are on the border of rationality, but I doubt it. I think events and strategems are typically well-thought out. Don't you think?

There are good reasons why the vast majority of scholars for 9/11 truth are moving to distance themselves from poorly supported, damaging...... and, frankly, unscientific/dubiously-researched hypotheses. We want scientific analysis and research. I want the same standards that were/are present in the neuroscience in which I did research.The no-planes stuff...... and its corrolary, 'space beams' is speculation that hurts 9/11 truth. And some say possibly designed to do so.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Is no plane at Pentagon & Shanksville

speculation too? should we be forebidden to discuss that too?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

No, because there is no

No, because there is no video evidence of the planes crashing. Whereas with the twin towers, the videos show planes crashing into buildings as well as audio of the engines roaring. But then that could be loud speakers connected to the hologram missile.

Show "Your immature statements don't help things" by Killtown

Science and Fun.....

You know as well as I, that in a scientific journal, speculation, per se, is not published. Articles based upon empirical data that are peer reviewed are published. Potential hypotheses warranting further exploration are sometimes identified in the conclusion section of an article. And only if the preceding information derived from experimentation justifies them. And this is one place where 'conservative' and 'data driven' is necessary. (Anybody who ever had had to write some of these, would understand.)

Pure Speculation is not. Speculation with accompanying baggage that includes rather serious contrary evidence is not. For the 9/11 truth movement, that sort of speculation will remain in the Fetzer province. Unless he decides someday to actually DO science. Flights of fancy are at his site. Fun to read, rather like space aliens..... and gee, maybe space aliens true - I always rather hoped they were........ But, again, not the material for a scientific approach to research. And not the material for a peer reviewed article.


"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Can anyone explain this?

When you have a plane hitting a building like that...you expect to see explosions when the engines, full of fuel, hit the buldings.

When you slow it down, you see a plane melt into the building, then you see the explosion once it's inside.

All plane crashes I've seen immediately burst into flames first as soon as the tanks rupture and then you see the smoke forming afterward, such as this:

Why is this the reverse in the South Tower crash?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Because the plane flew into

Because the plane flew into a mesh of steel, obscuring your view of the fireball as it grew and filled up the space between the undamaged floors and then emerging out of the structure itself.

Fire emerged out the east face and "exit hole"

but SMOKE emerged out the impact hole THEN fire. How do you explain that?

I'll explain. That smoke is from explosives, then you see part of the fireball emerge afterward out of the impact hole from whatever they used to make the massive fireball.

No? Then you explain better.


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Concrete dust from the

Concrete dust from the floors - Remember the F4?

Are you for real???

Concrete dust???

What F4?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Pulverized concrete from the

Pulverized concrete from the 4" concrete floors.

F4 -> F4 verse the 10ft Concrete wall... 

So if the Sandia F4 video is legit

(I have my doubts that it is), then why didn't any of the plane turn to powder when it hit, especially the fagile wing/tail tips?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Killtown, please try to do

Killtown, please try to do science. Reference the sources, reference the data regarding the history of crashes etc.

Try to devise experiments, plausibly, that would prove your conclusion that this event was anomalous. Or use sufficient historical empical data to support your contention that the event was anomalous. Then, figure out how to leap logically to your conclusion that no planes and then to space beams..... etc. Be sure to include contradictory evidence and explanations why the data and conclusions you assert are irrelevant. And counter them with data one by one. If you don't do that, all you say is specious.

Go for it dude.

And then remember. This site is much more of a forum or stew for this stuff than a scientific journal. Have fun. But, try to remember why this doesn't quality for a scientific journal. If it can stand, then you need to do the proofs to show that it does. buena suerte. And the forum will decide how well you do.
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

edited for spelling, rdw

Lemme guess

You think I subscribe to the new space beam theory, don't you?


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

the missle under the plane

opened up a gouge in building thats what made the entry look so smooth,
The movement can not afford distractions from our most credible evidence,
which is the vast amount of publicly supported anomlolies, warnings being ignored, put options,
and the physical evidence of Zinc and Sulfur. Lets stay focused people, I think Shayler is a plant or just on a bit of a bender

---- WOW ----

Did you just say there was a missile under that plane that shot out????

Then follow it up with our movement can not afford distractions???


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

No the reason the plane cuts

No the reason the plane cuts into the building is because it's travelling at 500 miles per hour and that any object travelling at speeds like that, including even tooth picks, will behave like something with infinitely more force and strength in comparison to a much slower travelling object. The planes had wings full of fuel, imagine how heavy water is and then imagine a large contained quantity of water travelling at 500mph impacting something, it's not going to splash it's going to smash with great force (as if it were a solid) when it collides with something.

Now take the plane and it's wings full of kerosene (which being a liquid like water is going to pack a heavy punch in this state) travelling at 500mph and into the Towers, which have outer columns specifically designed to absorb such an impact. The plane and it's wings specifically are going cut into the building "like butter" on impact and begin to instantly disintegrate once inside, igniting the fuel in the wings creating a massive orange fireball.

There is no need for "pods/missiles" "no-planes/tv fakery", that stuff is all nonsensical sensationalist bullshit designed, along with "space beams" and "mini nukes", to discredit 9/11 truth.


sorry to leave the fray. But got patients to see in am.

Shayler is doing great,

until he starts babbling about the no-plane theory.

After that utter disaster.

Show "So he should lie and say planes hit there" by Killtown


Does anyone have the video of this? These two links are MyTube and Flash - both of which I cannot use.

and i think this is important

Ok man I'll see if I can

Ok man I'll see if I can grab them for you. It's not difficult once you lean though, you just use keepvid.com to get the flv files and then download a converting program called "Super" and convert the flv's to mov's, mpeg's, wmv's etc.

I'm MAC based

so i don't think these apps are available for me

here you go dude;

Shayler on sky part 1
67.24 MB

Shayler on sky part 2
67.38 MB

Shayler on sky part 3
71.98 MB

Gatekeeping the street cred of the brainwashing media...

COINTELPRO operators would have a cruical assignment in gatekeeping the authenticity of the mainstreaam media.
Mainly against exposure of transparent fraud and fakery.

I suppose you think that all the "Al Qaeda videos" are real as well ?
The ones with fat and skinny Osamas in them ?
Or the one where Nick Berg is supposedly beheaded ?

I've actually slowed down the CNN broadcast video of the 2nd Tower hit, and it is an obvious cartoon.



It doesn't take much effort to do it using Quicktime or RealPlayer.

Unless you are just too lazy, slothful or techncially illiterate to slow down a video.
Just download it and watch and aluminum/fibreglass "plane" cut through steel and concrete WITH ZERO IMPACT ...
like a knife thru butter.

It's total bullshit.
It's a f**king cartoon, and you can't see it ?
No way...
No one could be that innocently blind and gullible.
Could they ?
To swallow a Boeing slicing thru the South Tower, like a knife thru butter, or melting into it like Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Of course, maybe you are one of those 9/11truthlings who slept thru junior high school science classes.

Yeah... that's right ... it ain't rocket science.
Anymore than recognizing that scores of "toasted cars" found blocks away from Ground Zero could not possibley have been done with thermate alone.

Perhaps you really believe that such this cartoon actually reflects what a Boeing jet would look like plowing into a skyscraper.

Only someone whose brain was already washed, dried and presssed from watching too many "exploding car crashes" in Hollywood films ....

You've got to be out here trying to patch up and protect the street cred of the mainstream media.
THAT is your objective role.

So who is putting you up to it.
Or is your ambition to "break into" the corrupt lying mainstream media ?