do what exactly? im not sticking up for Shayler or vouching for him, im simply pointing out how absurd it is that some of us around here think that when people see the BBC doc he had a part in they will be completely turned off to alternative 9/11 information because of it. as if even 5% will even know or follow up on who he is. its a short little online documentary that rips the BBC apart and serves a good purpose in that sense. i agree its a problem when Shayler shows up on Sky TV or whatever talking about holograms but thats not what this is here. but do what exactly? what did you mean by that?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Yes.

We can all agree however, that DRG is not disrupting the movement. It is perfectly reasonable to have differing views on 9/11 as long as the one holding them is open to honest debate and a re-evaluation of the evidence and doesn't attack someone personally for holding contrary views. This really gets us nowhere. I don't object to those who are willing to honestly debate contrary views, but those who are not, it is best to leave it alone and spend our energies elsewhere. Some of contrarian views can simply arise because of the nature of 9/11 attacks and that the perpetrators are withholding evidence (WTC7 videos, WTC 7 photos of the "damage", WTC steel, Pentagon videos, etc), leading to speculations.

I personally feel we should stick to what we can prove with dead certainty--scientific proof. The weak arguments are always highlighted by the MSM in a straw-man to discredit by "guilt by association" our strongest evidence. I believe that there may even be a two-part disinformation/MSM strategy to create/highlight hoaxes. You only have to look at the amount of times certain individuals within the movement are given airtime on TV interviews/documentaries to espouse their views over other activists.

While I suppose this could be a coincidence, I fear that it is not.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

with Shayler going on British television talking about holograms. But actually, he said that in the article "Meet the No-Planers" in the New Statesman, which misrepresented Shayler's hologram theory as representing the views of no-planers.

The article quoted him as saying "There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11." It also said Shayler's leaflet had a link to lizard man David Icke. Then, as if to say that lizard men running the world was not nearly as kooky, the article says, "things really go off the rails." Shayler claims no planes, then says "the only explanation" is holograms.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

Of course, there is another, more plausible and much more widely accepted view, which is simply that the videos were faked. Whatever you think of that, you must agree that holograms are not "the only explanation," and not the most widely held

This performance has led many to believe that former MI5 man Shayler is still an intelligence officer. Maybe, maybe not, but he hit three disinfo buttons --- Jews, aliens, and holograms. He was subjected to much criticism as a result, and perhaps as a result, has changed his argument.

In the interview on Britain's Sky News in December 2006, he did not make a hologram claim, and actually made an argument that should be beyond dispute by anyone serious about getting at the truth of 9/11.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9060379095349825616

His argument was simply that there is a international legal requirement that any air crash be investigated, and that there were no air crash investigations for any of the four alleged planes. This is a fact, right? There have been no official NTSB investigations, which presumably are required under the treaty of the International Civil Aviation Organization as well as under federal law. (Though federal law appears to have changed after TWA 800.)

Therefore, he said, there is no evidence that Flight 11 or Flight 175 hit the towers. The same argument would apply to the crashes of Flight 93 and Flight 77.

Whether there were air crash investigations is debateable, but after TWA 800 the FBI got lead agency status if the cause was criminal, and the FBI is not releasing information. Here is what NTSB says:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1

Shayler's argument about no investigations does not necessarily mean no planes, as it would also apply to the remote controlled plane theory that is often promoted here.

But the interviewer asked Shayler about the WTC videos, and he simply answered that he would invite the viewers to slow the video down and make their own conclusions about what happened there. A good answer, as the videos speak for themselves.

Shayler went on to talk about controlled demolitions and thermate, and about the general motives for false flag terror by the neocons and the military/industrial/oil complex, which is also backing off the "Zionist conspiracy" argument. All in all, not so bad even if you are convinced that no planes is disinformation. The problem is that Shayler earlier poisoned the well with his holograms, lizards, and Zionists, whether intentionally or not.

All this begins about 9 minutes into the video.

yup - a "hunch" - It's a single source story - and most of what intelligence agencies do (in regards to covert ops) is insert cover stories via dis/misinformation. It would be naive to think Pakistan doesn't have assets working in India's media for the same purpose.

Note I am not making the statement that Pakistan is not involved in 9/11, I am just saying the story is probably misdirection.