Two Former US Government Officials and an ex-MI5 agent say:
"The Official 9/11 Story Is False"
Given the wonderfully free nature of the US mainstream press, readers may have missed the fact that, over the past few weeks, no less than three government and intelligence agency officials from the US and Britain have openly called into question the US government's version of events on September 11th 2001.
The first authority figure to state the glaringly obvious was former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds. Reynolds stated that he believes that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said:
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
Next up to blow away the faltering smokescreen around 9/11 was former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, who is listed by 'Who's Who in America' as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world. While Roberts still holds on to his Republican/Conservative ideology, he has become severely disillusioned with the present gang of ultra-right NeoCons running the show in Washington, he states: "I just can't respect a party leadership who doesn't respect the truth."
According to Roberts, 9/11 is "only a part of a mysterious but deadly Neo-Con puzzle" and the NeoCons are "making such fatalistic mistakes and are about as insane as Hitler and the Nazi Party when they invaded Russia in the dead of the winter."
Although professing to know "a little about engineering" from his undergraduate days at Georgia Tech, Roberts deferred formulating any serious conclusions about the fall of the WTC, but expressed doubt as to the credibility of the entire official version based on past government lies uncovered at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the threat of WMD in Iraq.
Referring to Reynolds' comments on the WTC collapse, Roberts suggests that they reveal just how flimsy and unbelievable the government story comes across. He states:
"This is not some kind of conspiracy nut or kook talking. He is a man with extremely qualified credentials, whose opinions I respect," said Roberts referring to Reynolds’ comments.
The third and most recent authority to debunk the 9/11 official story fantasy was former MI5 agent David Shayler who spoke to Alex Jones of Prison Planet. Shayler hit the headlines in the UK a few years ago when he was sentenced to 6 months in prison for disclosing documents to the media obtained during his time as an MI5 officer.
Shayler had become disgusted by the duplicity and deceit that was rife within the British intelligence community and, after resigning, decided to go public with his claim that both MI6 and MI5 (UK equivalent to the CIA and the FBI) had been involved in a failed coup attempt whereby £100,000 ($180,000) was paid to known al-Qaeda operatives to kill Libyan leader Mummar Gadaffi in late 1995. One of the hit men, Anas al-Liby, who was known to the British government as an al-Qaeda "terrorist", was even given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000. Shayler claims that, at the time of the plot, MI6 knew the location of Bin Laden and had an excellent opportunity to arrest him but chose to allow him to remain at large.
During Shayler's trial, the judge required him to disclose in advance the questions he planned to ask prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. Shayler was also denied the right to question the credibility of the five prosecution witnesses, four of whom remained anonymous at the behest of the British Home Secretary and was prevented from calling two witnesses who overheard a conversation in which an MI6 agent confirmed British intelligence involvement in the coup attempt.
During the trial, Home Secretary David Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed Public Interest Immunity certificates to protect national security.
These restrictions led to a row between the Attorney General and the so-called D-Notice Committee, which advises the press on national security issues.
The committee, officially known as the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, has objected to demands by the prosecution to apply the Official Secrets Act retrospectively to cover information already published or broadcast as a result of Shayler's disclosures. Members of the committee, who include senior national newspaper executives, are said to be horrified at the unprecedented attempt to censor the media during the trial.
Given the efforts made by the Blair government to gag Mr. Shayler and the fact that his claims have since been verified as true by French Intelligence, it would appear the Mr Shayler is not just a bitter ex-spook out to damage his former employer with spurious allegations. As mentioned, last week, Shayler spoke to Alex Jones about the 9/11 attacks, despite a gag imposed by the British government preventing him from speaking about his work as an MI5 agent. During the interview, Shayler made clear 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.
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."
Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.
"The more I look at it, you realize that it’s not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."
"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn’t an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."
Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.
"So you’re looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de’tat because you’ve got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn’t take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de’tat, a violent coup de’tat."
"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don’t take all the evidence, they don’t often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."
Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.
"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they’re trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."
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."
The former MI5 agent also mentioned the proclivity of Israeli intelligence to carry out 'False Flag' operations, stating that in the july 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy in London, some within MI5 believed that the Israelis themselves bombed the embassy and that they then framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.
"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn’t disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."
So there it is folks. No longer are allegations that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks the domain of "fringe conspiracy kooks" alone but now also include internationally respected economists, former Bush administration officials and vindicated ex-British government intelligence agents.
Technorati Tags: 9/11