DisInfoWars with Tom Secker: Is David Shayler a Fake Whistleblower?

David Shayler is possibly the most famous security service whistleblower in British history. He has also claimed to be the Messiah. In this episode I delve into Shayler's story and his influence on the 9/11 and 7/7 truth movements, where he has always advocated the most lunatic, tabloid versions of events. I ask if his behavior has been designed to make conspiracy theorists and whistleblowers look crazy, and going deeper than that whether he was some sort of test to see how much the truth movement would tolerate.

In the latter part of the show I recall the book he wrote with his then-partner Annie Machon, which is quite profoundly misleading. It claims, for example, that the alleged Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi was actually guilty, which undermines their central 'revelation' that MI6 sponsored Al Qaeda to try to kill Gaddafi in the mid-1990s. I hypothesize that Shayler and Machon are Trojan horses that are still working for the British state.

Sources

David Shayler announces he's the Messiah on Channel 4 News

Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. candideschmyles says:

    He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.

  2. Very very good.
    You swept out the cupboard.

  3. 344thBrother says:

    Tom, thank you kindly for granting my request for your take on David Shayler. You certainly know a LOT more about him than I do. Very informative.

    After listening I agree. False Whistle Blower, I just didn’t know HOW false. I didn’t know he was a “No-Planer” nor did I know that he claimed to be a messiah, so this was interesting and enlightening. It’s folks like you who spend the in depth time keeping the various truth movements honest.

    Keep up the good work.

    peace
    d

  4. Good stuff, Tom. Something always rung hollow about the Shaylor/Machon show though, like you, I lack definitive proof of fraud. I think Dr. Judy Wood (among others) plays a similar role in the 9/11 truth movement here in the US right down to the aggressive assertions lacking evidentiary support. Cognitive infiltration carried out ahead of the publication of Cass Sunstein’s paper — how rude. Ah well, for those paying attention some of the best evidence is contained in the cover-ups. This much energy expended on calculated and organized silliness says a lot.

    • Peter,

      Judy Wood certainly played a similar role, though exactly who was pulling her strings or paying her is not something I have any idea about. Maybe I’ll do an episode explaining some of my thoughts on Sunstein and his work because I think there’s something more subtle going on there.

      • Tom,

        Sounds like an episode eminently worth recording. My two cents – the very knowledge of the existence of something like Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” comments function, in and of themselves, as a psy-op that vastly increases suspicion within conspiracy culture.

        I’ve spent much of my adult life as a professional poker player, which is basically a kind of circumscribed information warfare. Almost all players, when catching someone bluffing, will strongly overcorrect to the side of suspicion and start assuming that the one-time bluffer is lying again thereafter, trying to catch them with very dubious hands of their own. That’s a somewhat labored analogy, but I sense something like that in Sunstein’s game – a statement like that is, in and of itself, like rolling Eris’s golden apple into a crowded dinner party.

  5. candideschmyles says:

    Another fine salvo of rational analysis in this disinfo war Tom. I personally never gave him much thought and less credence after his initial entry into public consciousness showed me he had nothing substantive to say. I was vaguely aware of his messianic nonsense, which I had put down to a twisted narcissism however the summary of his deeds presented here does give a contextual overview in which the conclusions you draw are the only logical possibility. So I agree he is and always has been doing his job as a hatchet man aiming to discredit the facts presented by the ranks of truth seekers.
    It follows that Annie Machon must also be a disinfo agent by implication. I had never really considered that but it makes sense too. I think I have listened to most of her lectures/talks and again found that though her lips move there is little to no substantive information on offer and serves little purpose other than to give her the illusion of credibility to infiltrate the alternative media circuit.
    Before listening to this I had listened to an old Boiling Frogs interview with Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12/23/podcast-show-120-what-do-we-mean-by-real-reform-when-it-comes-to-the-nsa/ , in which you leave a scathing addition in the comments focussing on that far more high profile and mainstream double act Snowden and Greenwald. As an admirer and supporter of Wikileaks these two, to borrow a Yorkshire phrase, really boil my piss. And there is the inimitable and infinitely soporific Noam Chomsky to cater for the liberal intellectual circuit. These and more do demonstrate that there is a consistent and sustained effort on the part of our deep state uberlords to create and control every aspect of the counter culture. Making your work all the more valuable.

    • Candide,

      Neither of them say anything particularly original or enlightening. Annie Machon has said the same thing in every interview she’s done for about 10 years.

      Re-reading that comment I left I do feel I was perhaps a little harsh but Snowden and Greenwald have pissed me off for a long time. And all the fake whistleblowers – Ellsberg, Machon, McGovern – they all support Snowden, and all say the same things over and over, like they are involved in a propaganda operation to drill things into people’s minds, rather than an activist operation to try to roll back the power of the NSA (etc.).

  6. Enjoyed that Tom, thanks, and your reasoning seems sounder than a pound. If you’re taking requests, it would be interesting to hear a similar deconstruction focused on Machon.

    While I’m at it, I was also interested in your disparaging comments about Colleen Rowley, and I’d like to hear more about your reasoning on her as well. Maybe that’s a larger issue: people who seem to have started out as genuine whistleblowers, frustrated people trying to do the right thing who have valuable insider information, who then seem to settle into comfortable roles as fringe-of-the-mainstream commentators.

    For me, although I am disappointed when they seem to stop pushing the envelope and settle into safer subjects, unless I hear them suddenly promoting actual disinformation, I don’t blame them much. They may not reach the ultimate heroic heights, but I’m grateful for the service they were able to render as far as it went. I had Ms Rowley in that category.

    Of course, there are other categories, such as those whose revelations are themselves a form of disinformation (arguably Ellsberg, as the Pentagon Papers essentially turned the CIA from manipulative instigators to honest brokers whose advice went sadly unheeded), and those who seem to have switched sides (as I recall without bothering to check my facts, Bob Baer seems to have gone from the edge of “inside job” territory back to safer “blowback” territory).

    Anyway, I’d personally welcome your take on Rowley as a wedge into the larger issue of what various gradations there are from pure disinformation agent to pure whistleblower, towards maybe a set of principles on how to evaluate them, or at least your own thoughts on how and why you stop listening to or respecting a given person.

    • Hi John,

      To be fair, I think Colleen Rowley started out as a genuine whistleblower, but like Tony Schaffer and some others did not really know what she was blowing the whistle on. If you think of her famous letter where she says that it’s as though Al Qaeda had infiltrated the FBI – this was seized on at the time as a powerful statement. But on reflection, over a decade later, it’s a complete joke of a thing to say. Only someone who doesn’t really ‘get’ the intelligence game would say such a thing.

      Fast forward some years and she’s part of this clique who were completely pro-Snowden, pro-Greenwald, pro-everything to do with that. So she’s fallen into a ‘safe’ place, no longer really criticising the establishment, going on Democracy Now, that sort of thing. On the Left and the Right there are a number of people who’ve done turned from whistleblowers into talking head commentators.

      Then, like you say, you’ve got the likes of Snowden and Ellsberg who are so abundantly dishonest and whose disclosures were so partial and limited and yet got so much media attention that they have to be psychological warfare operatives of some kind. I see Rowley as quite distinct from them.

      Maybe I’ll give some more thought to distinctions and principles and so on after we’ve taken a look at Ellsberg and Watergate and Howard Hunt. But yeah, it’s a good question – how to spot a real whistleblower. It would make for a good episode and discussion too, so by all means give me any of your thoughts and questions.

      Finally, I am due to be on the show The Mind Renewed sometime in the next week or two to revisit Snowden so that’s something to keep an eye out for.

      • I’m not completely sure I ‘get’ the intelligence game myself. Do you mean
        1. Find angry people
        2. Link up with them
        3. Radicalize them
        4. Make them leave traces
        5. Blow up a bomb
        6. Find the traces
        7. Blame the angry people?

        If that’s the game you still need some kind of infiltration of the investigative services in order to redirect / misdirect investigations before and after the act. So Rowley’s statement doesn’t seem particularly uninformed to me. Or do you mean it’s too obvious to even mention?

        • candideschmyles says:

          Regarding Assange I have full faith in his journalistic integrity. There is not only not a chink to be found that brings his integrity into dispute but also no reasonable argument to support the idea that he is not despised by the US like no other journalist alive today. In my not so amusing musing on his plight I have wondered if Snowden was actually in part meant to lure Assange out of the UK so he could be spirited over to rot in a US prison. Sounds outlandish maybe but wikileaks though not publishers of Snowdens unsurprising revelations were involved in getting him to Russia. Was Snowden in part at least a lure to tempt the notoriously hands on and control freaking fish out of the UK, its a possibility.

          • There’s this one thing that I don’t like about Assange, which is his a priori dismissal of the idea that there might be more to 9/11 than the surface phenomenon. I guess I agree with you that that in itself doesn’t necessarily put his integrity into question. Same for Noam Chomsky.

          • candideschmyles says:

            I get your point and am sympathetic to it. However I am slow to judge let alone dismiss those that have yet to realise the terrible truths regarding 9/11. If you think about it Assange has a very particular remit, that is publishing documents that whistleblowers wish to see in the public domain. Outside of that his commentary is sparse except on his own plight and journalistic freedom in general. He rarely makes any political point really. So you could say it is up to a whistleblower to get the documentary evidence into the hands of Wikileaks and be published. Till then, rightly or wrongly, he is not going to taint the reputation of himself or wikileaks with what is still largely percieved as crazy conspiracy theory.

        • Olivier,

          What I mean about Rowley is that the notion that Al Qaeda had infiltrated the FBI so far that they were preventing information being passed on is utterly absurd. How someone would get to that view of things before getting to the ‘we infiltrated Al Qaeda and use them as a proxy, which is what’s being protected and covered up’ view – I do not know. To me, it smacks of someone who doesn’t have a bloody clue what’s going on in the world.

          I mean, if someone now said that the reason why the US hasn’t stopped ISIS is because ISIS have infiltrated the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I’d consider them a total idiot. Admittedly, this is what Alex Jones and his guests say quite regularly (that Obama’s a Muslim who wants to be the leader of Global Islam and is shipping a million Muslims a year into the US) but they are complete idiots.

          • Yes, but if indeed she said that it’s AS THOUGH Al Qaeda had infiltrated, then it’s not stupid, because she understands that Azzam didn’t walk up to the FBI HQ to structurally block all relevant investigations. What she’s saying is that investigations were structurally blocked to such a degree that you would have had the same effect had Al-Zawahiri been sitting next to David Frasca.

            From there she might indeed have either stopped thinking or stopped talking. She gave a talk at that conference I mentioned. It was about the 1% and their tendency to be psychopaths. In the QA I told her that what she was describing already had a name: The Class War, (from her facial expression she didn’t seem to buy that), and that according to old wisdom the 99% of the world had better unite, and whether she had any idea how to proceed. Her answer was she didn’t know, and that we needed a new Martin Luther King.

            For what it’s worth.

          • Olivier,

            Sure, but everyone knows that Al Qaeda hadn’t literally blocked the investigations. It still shows that’s she’s firmly living in the world where us = good guys, Al Qaeda = bad guys, and we’re on different sides. That’s pretty naive and gullible if you ask me, particularly for someone who is supposed to be a celebrated intelligence officer and whistleblower.

            Now, I didn’t particularly care about that until I saw her leaping on the Edward Snowden bandwagon and praising people for praising Snowden and engaging in this entirely insular back-patting exercise. They were more concerned with turning Snowden into an icon than they were with whether his ‘revelations’ really amounted to anything. And I never saw that happen with prior whistleblowers, suggesting that somewhere along the line an order was given – this guy is the big one, everyone has to be activated or suckered in to lend their name to it. Thus, the reality about Snowden will never be discussed, because it’s socially impossible for all those people to admit they were wrong, having been so vicious towards anyone who raised doubts.

            I’m kinda ranting now, but I find this situation very frustrating, that whistleblowers become ‘a name’ which then gets used to add credence to official government deceptions.

          • Tom,

            “… that whistleblowers become ‘a name’ which then gets used to add credence to official government deceptions.” well put. We have had so many of such cases. The frequency went up after 2003-2004. The period 2002-2004 saw an unprecedented number of whistleblowers (many were ‘real’) coming out (From FBI to FAA/TSA). Then we started seeing the entry of pseudo whistleblowers (Ex: Plame/Wilson & the latest case Snowden) … It is like killing two (or more) birds with one stone: from putting out/spreading misinfo (gov info) to marginalizing/destroying real whistleblowers …

          • Sibel,

            A similar pattern to the 1970s with Perry Fellwock and Philip Agee (and others) being cancelled out by the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and all that. It’s a tough time for real whistleblowers, and I do sympathise with a lot of people who want to say something but don’t know who to turn to. Wikileaks was supposed to be one route, but what about people who don’t have documents? And government files are quite boring to read – you can’t rely on journalists to interpret them correctly. Plus, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing (or both), the public like to be able to put a face to a story.

          • “she’s firmly living in the world where us = good guys, Al Qaeda = bad guys”

            You’re probably right. That talk I mentioned, the 1% = the psychopaths one, does indicate that she had an inkling at some point that the rot was from within. She didn’t share her slides unfortunately, and there’s also no video. Just looked it up, the title of her talk was “secrecy kills”:
            https://web.archive.org/web/20130824042017/https://program.ohm2013.org/
            which looks like a reference to the Fenton/Duffy/Nowosielski podcast two years prior. They didn’t figure in the talk though, from what I remember.

        • 344thBrother says:

          Olivier:
          1. Find angry people
          2. Link up with them
          3. Radicalize them
          4. Make them leave traces
          5. Blow up a bomb
          6. Find the traces
          7. Blame the angry people? –

          OR

          1. Find stupid people.
          2. Bribe stupid people.
          3. Lie to stupid people.
          4. Get stupid people to build YOUR bomb.
          5. Get stupid people to try and blow up your bomb.
          6. Leave traces to stupid people complete with stupid radical video evidence..
          7. Kill stupid people.

          Yes it’s a stupid oversimplification. I’m good at those!
          peace
          d

      • I’ll look forward to that Mind Renewed episode. It’s a fascinating topic.

        I think your description of Rowley as somebody who didn’t really understand the lock that she had some keys for is accurate. Or didn’t really want to understand it, bent over backwards not to understand it perhaps. Wants really badly to limit the thing to issues of incompetence and stupidity.

        I have a harder time accepting that about Tony Shaffer. Perhaps I’m over-valuing the “intelligence” in intelligence work, but it seems to me that the guy up to his neck in Able Danger ought to have a pretty clear idea what’s actually going on. So where I can have sympathy perhaps for a Rowley, I lean towards contempt for those who know but choose to dissimulate.

        Ellsberg, I don’t know, he may have thought he was really onto something with the Pentagon Papers. He may have been manipulated; he may still not quite get it. Would be interested to hear more about why you think he has been abundantly dishonest.

        Same with Snowden. I know there are abundant grounds for skepticism, particularly given the Greenwald factor. I probably haven’t followed his story as closely as you have, so I’d be happy to be further educated. But at the moment my personal jury is still out, not quite taking him at face value, but not feeling like I have very solid grounds on which to consider him a definite phony. If the information revealed so far has been underwhelming; fine. If it could be considered a psyop in itself, to make everyone assume that Big Brother Is Watching You Everywhere Always; fine. But how would that look any different if in fact Snowden was exactly what he purports to be, that is, a guy who grabbed some stuff, gave it to a journalist he thought was cool out of a genuine sense of integrity, and beat it out of the country to stay out of jail? When I ask where’s the abundant dishonesty, it’s a real question, not an implication that it doesn’t exist, by the way.

        Eyes, ears, and mind officially open.

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          In a previous thread – a Probable Cause episode I believe – Sibel explained the Tony Schaffer case and others like him very adequately: basically they have spouses who plead, “what about us?” “what about our children”. Besides being a whistle-blower because they feel a responsibility to honor the constitution and and to tell the truth, they also have the responsibility of mouths to feed. As the career opportunities dry up, and as the financial situation becomes more desperate, they will be more inclined to consider that FOX News offer, or that book contract, with the understanding that there will be limits and certain subjects will not be discussed, even the subject matters that put them in the public eye to begin with. For these reasons, then, I think we should be a little more forgiving when these whistle-blowers appear to back-track or to not go as far as we think they should. Remember that they are trying to keep their families together, and sometimes they fall apart. In Sibel’s case, it is my impression that she is not the primary bread-winner of the family, so this hasn’t been as much a factor as it is in other cases.

          Conversely, for those who go over the deep end, I wonder if this isn’t done as a kind of insurance policy – a character self-immolation if you will. When you consider the body trails associated with certain events, those who know too much and could do the most damage to a network are just trying to stay alive. In consideration of that, they may throw in the kook factor so that they can be dismissed as such, instead of being dispatched from this Earth. Perhaps David Shayler is an instance of this. Cathy O’Brien may be another. And Susan Lindauer – I first read about her in the New York Times Magazine, where she was nick-named “Symbol Susan” and it was claimed that she had a psychic premonition of 9/11. The average NYT reader then went away thinking she’s just a little loopy, and hence took her less seriously. In interviews of her in more fringe outlets, however, she doesn’t say it was a psychic premonition, but that it was inside knowledge that she was privy to in cleared circles.

          So then, for both those who go mainstream, and for those who go fringe, I think we should hesitate to throw about accusations of “shill!” “disinfo agent!” and the like. Yeah, they may be spreading disinfo, but they may have very good reasons for doing so. It’s up to us – those of us who are observers, the curious public as opposed to the vastly incurious public – to read between the lines, and sort it out as best we can.

          • Good points, thanks Ronald. I shouldn’t be so quick to go with contempt. But there’s a difference too between those who stop chasing the truth for the reasons you mention, and those who actively muddy the waters. There are plenty of ways of raising families without polluting your own spirit and leaving a legacy of lies.

          • Ronald,

            You are right to highlight us sceptics being too quick to dismiss someone. I think we can ask too much of whistleblowers, but certain ones like Shayler I just cannot believe are authentic. Nonetheless, I wish there were more whistleblowers, particularly in this country. The climate in the US is overtly hostile towards real whistleblowers, no doubt, but here in the UK we really don’t get many.

            But then, of course, there’s the David Kelly situation. Odds are that he was assassinated, and one of the main reasons was to send a warning to others – ‘we’re taking Iraq, so keep your mouths shut’. Even the limited FOIA and inquiry releases show conclusively what really happened with the Iraq War ‘intelligence’ and it was a disgrace. Could whistleblowers have stopped that? Probably not. So I am quite forgiving towards some of those who kept their mouths shut.

            For what it’s worth, I think Iraq was a bigger crime than 9/11, it angers me enormously that they got away with that.

          • I never heard of the psychic premonitions. Are you sure she wasnt being sarcastic?

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Tom, you are probably right about Shayler. It is odd that he would accept Megrahi’s guilt on Lockerbie. No planes is a red flag as well. Jim Fetzer of course has been another proponent of that one. Whether Fetzer is an “agent” though, I’m not prepared to accept. I did argue against no planes with him once in person, basically saying that you cannot extract a universal from an existential (i.e. “proof” of video fakery even in many cases does not prove fakery in all cases, which in itself would present a serious problem for the would be perpetrators) as he, a philosophy/critical thinking prof., should know. He conceded the point but then fell back on the hologram theory! A “nutty professor” perhaps, but I do think he’s genuine. Consideration of outlier hypotheses is not unreasonable, however, because let’s face it, there is more in heaven and Earth than uncleared epistemic neophytes like ourselves can dream of. For this reason, I’m not prepared to out of hand dismiss say, the DEW hypothesis in the destruction of the WTC, as you apparently are.

          • Ronald,

            I would necessarily completely dismiss the DEW hypothesis, I just think it’s kooky as hell and not a very practical thing to try to investigate. What the 9/11 movement did very well, at least for a significant chunk, was to do the investigation that wasn’t being done by the authorities. And that led to a lot of strange stuff, some of which may even be true.

            But Shayler’s approach has always been very tabloid, he’s someone who is clearly trying to draw attention to himself. Perhaps he’s a bona fide nutter. Perhaps he’s just a raging narcissist with a taste for exotic theories. Or perhaps he’s a fake whistleblower. Even if he’s real, he’s a pretty crap whistleblower.

            I’m always willing to listen to exotic theories, if for no better reason than to hear the unusual logics that people employ in support of them. It’s a good lesson in how other people think, and can be very enjoyable. But even my brief flirtations with the British truth scene taught me a few things about how much is tolerated. Everything from the people who say they are jesus through to the neo-nazis. I don’t see Shayler doing anything except contributing wholeheartedly to making the whole thing a mess.

            Fetzer is certainly untrustworthy, but that alone does not make someone an agent, of course. He is very good at avoiding logical criticisms, for a philosophy professor. I remember getting into a great argument with Fetzer about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument. This is probably after I’d berated Nick Kollerstrom for being a holocaust denier. One day I might publish those emails, that was hysterical stuff. The ‘debate’ that came out of it essentially consisted of them trying to bait me and avoiding answering direct questions with simple answers. Still, I had fun. Probably achieved absolutely nothing.

          • That should say ‘wouldn’t dismiss’ – I should proofread my comments…

  7. I once went to a computer hacking conference that had what I thought was a remarkable line-up of countercurrent heroes: MacGovern, Machon, Rowley, Drake, Radack, and there was an hour-long skype link to the Ecuadorian embassy with Assange telling us what to do with our lives (the audio was poor to the point of his sermon not reaching any of us if I remember). The spooks were collecting money for the trip to Russia you mentioned, and I’m afraid I’ll have to admit in this company that I actually contributed to paying for that trip.. Never too old to learn I guess.. Thanks for the great info Tom. I had already studied your earlier version on Clandestime, but there’s always new things to learn.

    You may have noticed that Daniel Hopsicker has been complaining for years now about the infiltration of the US 9/11 truth movement with crazy story tellers. I like his investigative work. I find him pretty hard to reason with though as times. (He categorically excludes remote plane control which I think is not a ludicrous proposition). As far as I can see he’s the one who came up with the link Graham Fuller -> Uncle Tsarni , has anybody at boilingfrogspost ever considered interviewing him? Or am I overlooking a reason to distrust his intentions?

    Do you know this list by Joël van der Reijden by the way?: http://isgp.nl/911_no_757_supporters
    I think he’s correct about the pentagon story (namely that a big airliner in fact did hit it), although it wasn’t him who convinced me of it (it was Jim Hoffman, google “Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics”). If one day the FBI comes along with 70 different angles of video of a 757 hitting the pentagon will any one of us still dare to start a discussion about 9/11? In a way we have to hope there was a plane swap/modification so they can’t release them…

  8. Did MI6 in fact plot to kill Gaddafi at that time?

  9. operationawake says:

    Belinda Mckenzie’s close association with the UK Column says alot, but then, the UK Column is another fascinating outfit. The wolves in sheep’s clothing springs to mind. Who pulls her strings is another matter entirely. I’m certainly in agreement with your views on Shayler and Machon. Another well observed podcast, and as always Tom, Keep up the thoughtful work.

    • candideschmyles says:

      I have seen nothing to indicate UK Column to be anything other than genuine. Would you care to expand on what you said. I do add that I don’t go to their site often and find their political stance enigmatic to downright unknown yet have found a few things there that were highly enlightening.

  10. operationawake says:

    Hi candideschmyles,
    it depends on your definition of what genuine is.
    As Tom pointed out in his podcast discussion, Belinda McKenzie past leaves alot to be desired, and her association with Brian Gerrish and the UK Column has always made me uncomfortable. With her known past and double dealings I would of steered clear of her altogether. I use to buy the UK Column paper on a monthly basis too, but I often wondered about how the UK Column funds itself. I know that they do get donations from supporters, but there’s never been a full list of donors to allow any form transparency. That to is unexceptable. I prefer honesty rather than not knowing the truth. As an ex-supporter I do believe that they should publish those people’s names who contribute/donate to the UK Column. As to whether the UK Column is more of a gatekeeper outfit than helping to spread the truth remains to be seen. Often you get truth inter-mixed with half truth and lies that are made out to be truth to confuse and confound you. My own opinion on the UK Column is that it’s dodgy, and considering that Belinda McKenzie and Farrell have both been associated with the UK Column doesn’t exactly help it’s image for speaking the truth to a wider audience.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Sorry but I am not convinced by that that UK Column is dodgy. Does this site publish all its subscribers names? If it does I didn’t know that. I would think UK Column is a shoestring outfit given its output. The topics it tackles are about as far from the MSM narrative as you can get and they seem to campaign on issues that are highly critical and revealing of the perverse dirty deeds of those in power.Without some substantial evidence to the contrary I have to continue to applaud most of what they publish.

      As for McKenzie herself I don’t know much except she campaigns to overhaul secret courts that deal with removing children from their families. And I applaud that. I can understand a need to protect names but the rest of the procedures, reasoning and rulings should not be secret. Some of the cases highlighted by UK Column and others really are scary and a lot of children have disappeared into that system without any oversight. Given the ongoing involvement of the police, judiciary and lawmakers in several paedophile scandals her work is not suspicious but heroic.

  11. operationawake says:

    It’s a matter of opinion I suppose. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. As for McKenzie, I personally wouldn’t trust her one bit, no matter what’s she’s done in the past. Her background is suspicious in my view.

    • candideschmyles says:

      I’m not trying to be contrary and as I say I know little about her. I would appreciate knowing any specific cause for the mistrust.
      As for Machon I am not sure of anything other than I agree with Tom that she has had nothing original nor important to say since she first appeared on the scene.

  12. Hi Tom,

    I’m really loving this series. You’re doing some sterling work and offering up a great alternate view of history while simultaneously dissecting the mainstream kook movement. Please keep it up.

    You’ve asked for possible suggestions for further episodes. I’d be very interested to hear the back story ‘The Chechen’, Abu Omar al-Shishani, who seems to be on the scene of just about everything in recent years. The Seattle Times recently did a piece on him, but I have no idea how much truth is in it…

    http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-us-trained-pied-piper-of-chechen-recruits-to-the-islamic-state-group/

  13. Thank you Tom,

    for sharing your insights about David Shayler.
    Let me join the other commentators here in asking you for more information on Annie Machon, if possible.
    At the moment, it looks like she is more active in Berlin. When I travelled to Berlin in June 2015, I talked to a political activist friend and she told me, that she is very upset with Annie Machon and she stopped cooperating with Machon after an incident. She claimed, that Machon (knowingly or unknowingly) tried to sabotage her work/reputation by promoting her appearance at a conference, where a political sect was a key sponsor. So, the question is, is Machon just naïve, not knowing the political landscape (=minefields) in Germany, or is she acting on purpose?

  14. Not interested in Shayler, but the … British accented narrator, is robotlike…. !

  15. Nice analysis

    It’s starting to like the Western countries are willing to apply their experience creating disorder and confusion abroad here at home. Shaping public opinion and stifling dissent are key to them for a compliant population.

    I would point out the similarities of Shaffer to Manning here in the U.S. Both were prosecuted for leaking classified data and went to prison, only to come out with gender identities issues.

    Finally, I must say: if we claim Snowden is not being honest, and almost indications are he isn’t, then what does it mean the Russian government took him in? Surely they’d know by now at least if he wasn’t up to ultimate motives.

    • nhaddock,

      The purpose of the Russian government giving shelter to Snowden was (perhaps) to disrupt whatever phase 2 of the Snowden operation was going to be. Phase 1 – leak stuff to Greenwald et al, but presumably that wasn’t the end of it. That would be my guess.

  16. dancingbrave says:

    Tom

    ‘if we claim Snowden is not being honest’ so a US agent (which I assume you agree with) and then say that ‘The purpose of the Russian government giving shelter to Snowden was (perhaps) to disrupt whatever phase 2 of the Snowden operation was going to be.’ It begs the question why would the US powers that be send their agent to Russia in the first place, he could have been sent somewhere where their plans wouldn’t get disrupted?

    Not sure whether I am looking at events too simply here?

    • DancingBrave,

      I get the impression Russia was only meant to be a stop-off point and that something genuinely went wrong. Or maybe the idea was to implicate Russia in order to throw the scent off the CIA.

      I admit, there’s a lot about Snowden I don’t understand. Whether this was an operation that got half-botched or whether this was the plan all along – I’m really not sure.

  17. There is the possibility that Snowden doesn’t realize he is being used. He could just be someone they selected based on personality type being useful. Then they create the appropriate environment to guide him where they want him.

    What was the reason people doubt his legitimacy?

    • Can any of you give a list of exiled whistle blower types like Assange and Snowden? I am wondering if there is a pattern. It could offer a chance to see operational methods.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Though luring Assange out was not really on the cards, he was already a defacto prisoner in the Ecuadorian Embassy, it was the wikileaks organisation that facilitated his movements to Hong Kong and Russia. My gut feeling is that organisation was a primary target. Perhaps to understand its structure, perhaps to discredit but whatever wikileaks is a thorn in the side of the US hegemony. They wanted it taken down, and have failed.

  18. 344thBrother says:

    Those of you who know me know that my nickname relates to my 343 brother firemen who were murdered in buildings full of BOMBS.

    It is with humiliation and dismay that I have yet to see (hardly any) of New York’s Bravest come out about what they ALL MUST KNOW. Instead they have cowered in fear to protect their pensions or because it’s psychologically hardest to stand up when the rest of the crowd doesn’t (I guess). The only thing they’ve gotten up on their hind legs about is the ongoing deaths and disabilities from the dust. “The air is safe to breath”.

    Above all else, I could never have predicted this cowardice, and even today 14 years on, it boggles my mind. It makes me ashamed, frankly. But it does go to show how immense pressure is applied to potential whistle blowers, so we should value and support every one.

    peace
    d

    • candideschmyles says:

      The red pill of 9/11 enlightenment is unique I think. The subconscious screams that the official narrative is impossible to anyone who ever played with Lego as a child, which is near everybody. Yet the implications of taking the pill, of acknowledging consciously that this was not a few terrorists with box cutters is enormous and life changing. I too am saddened fewer of the first responders have spoken out. However they saw so many of their colleagues murdered that day with such brazen audacity that they will rightly fear the repercussions of speaking out. I don’t blame them. They are only doing what they managed to do that day, surviving.

    • In 2006 Graeme MacQueen counted 118 of your brothers that seem to have told what they could:
      http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

      His count went up lateron.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        I too have learned all about Dr. MacQueen’s studies/writings/lectures about the 100+ firemen’s testimonies, in particular their testimonies of hearing explosions as the towers disintegrated.

        344thBrother I’d be very curious to hear what you have done or tried to do, to bring to the public’s attention what really happened on 9/11?

  19. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I have now listened to your Disinfowars broadcast on David Shayler twice now.

    I honestly have not heard any compelling evidence demonstrating he is a fake whistleblower.

    On the other hand I have seen and heard Shayler discuss his MI5 experience, 9/11 and a host of other issues and came away each time being in agreement with virtually everything he had to say.

    So whether he is a fake or not, I must say we share like minds.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Messiah!! Where have you been? We have all been waiting…..

    • I did hear evidence: The final effect of what he does is to (1) reinforce dubious establishment narratives and (2) discredit skeptics:
      (Ad 1): He promotes the default story of the Lockerbie case without at least referring to its problems.
      (Ad 2): He poses as a skeptic and then starts talking nonsense, being:
      (a) He’s a no-planer both for Pentagon and WTC. One can be forgiven for the first, but the second is pretty hard.
      (b) He makes himself ridiculous by going Icke. Mental-Messiah.

      Given his trajectory, I find it reasonable to doubt the original intentions. Whether evidence is compelling depends on personal definitions I guess. If were forced to bet, I’d bet Tom Secker is correct.

      By the way, in case of a corrupt state, there’s a problem proving that corruption if that proof is expected to be in the form of state documentation. The state almost exclusively produce evidence against those that it decided to expel, who will in that case be presented as bad apples.

      Have you thought about what you would consider to be compelling evidence?

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        I did hear evidence: The final effect of what he does is to (1) reinforce dubious establishment narratives and (2) discredit skeptics:
        (Ad 1): He promotes the default story of the Lockerbie case without at least referring to its problems.

        Whether he does or not is no evidence, in part or in whole, that he is a fake whistleblower.
        His opinions on Lockerbie, green house gases, euthanasia etc. to me is totally irrelevant to whether he is a genuine or fake whistleblower.


        (Ad 2): He poses as a skeptic and then starts talking nonsense, being:
        (a) He’s a no-planer both for Pentagon and WTC. One can be forgiven for the first, but the second is pretty hard.
        (b) He makes himself ridiculous by going Icke. Mental-Messiah.

        The fact that Mr. Shayler at one point in his life claimed he was the Messiah or that he is/was a proponent of the no-plane theory can in no way be used as proof that he is a fake whistleblower.

        Heck, I used to be a no-planer myself for a period of time. What does that say about me?

        The reality is that almost all 9/11 truthers today are no-planers of some form. Most don’t believe planes were involved at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
        So we are 50% no-planers. Nothing wrong with that.
        And 100% no-planers must not be banished from the face of the earth or marginalized in some other way, however misguided they may in fact be.

        Have you thought about what you would consider to be compelling evidence?

        Yes I did actually.

        The type of evidence we have been able to accumulate to date that proves 9/11 was an inside job, is in my estimation compelling evidence.

        Nothing Tom has discussed has come even close to convincing me that Mr. Shayler is a fake whistleblower.

        An attention-seeking kook with a gift for gab, sure.
        But not a dishonest one.

        • Would you be more explicit as to indicate what you would consider compelling evidence of Shayler’s discrediting effect being intended, either by himself or somebody else?

          I agree that what I called ‘evidence’ is best replaced by ‘arguments’. The argument being that the surface phenomenon is pretty much what you would expect in case the phenomenon was in fact intended. I agree that doesn’t prove it was intended.

          Which leaves us with three quality levels of compulsion towards ‘proof’:
          1. arguments
          2. evidence
          3. compelling evidence

          I’d be interested in your definitions of these categories applied to the Shayler phenomenon. What would you consider evidence, and what would you consider compelling evidence?

          I’m asking because I somehow suspect that the probability of quality of arguments reaching level 2 or 3 is pretty low EVEN IF the thesis is true. Which is why I made the remark on state corruption: Even in case the hypothesis is actually true, the probability of proving it in terms of documentation is low.

          I’d be curious to establish some kind of quality standard of truth-finding that is independent of possibly corrupted official channels.

          I end up expression my opinions in the form “If would have to bet, I’d bet XYZ” which works for me.

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            Olivier thanks for your breakdown of the three levels of proof. I am in agreement with them.
            As far as breaking down Tom’s piece into what I would consider evidence versus argument, I am not prepared to do that because quite honestly it would be a time-consuming tedious affair.

            Would you be more explicit as to indicate what you would consider compelling evidence of Shayler’s discrediting effect being intended, either by himself or somebody else?

            Again, I am not going to touch this one either. If I see something that I consider compelling evidence in this case, I will be sure to notify you about it.
            So far I haven’t. That’s the best I can do.

          • Ribbit Mark,

            I didn’t mean to ask you for a breakdown or another analysis on Tom’s episode. What I meant was: Can you give me an example, a hypothetical piece of information, which Tom did not provide, which would convince you of (or rather make you bet on) the intentionality of Shayler’s discrediting effect on the 9/11 truth movement?

            A possible answer would be: “I’d bet it was intentional if Shayler would say so himself”.

            Next, what to do with a requirement for proof that renders proofs very improbable, even in case the thesis to be proven is actually true. Would there be a practical advantage in relaxing the quality requirements on such proof, or would that just generate random opinions with no discernible relation to reality?

            I suspect there is an advantage, but haven’t dug deep into the question.

        • Ribbit Mark,

          “Q: Have you thought about what you would consider to be compelling evidence?

          A: Yes I did actually.

          The type of evidence we have been able to accumulate to date that proves 9/11 was an inside job, is in my estimation compelling evidence.”

          You weren’t asked for another example of something you consider compelling evidence, but what you would consider compelling evidence in this case (the question of Shayler’s authenticity). If you were on a jury and refused to believe someone was guilty, and you were asked what would convince you that they were guilty, and you replied ‘the sort of evidence that shows that hydrogen and oxygen are the constituents of water’ then that would be a nonsense argument.

          There is a chance that Shayler is just completely insane and wrong about everything. Either he’s that, or he is fake, but in either case he shouldn’t be taken seriously by the truth movement. So whether he was an MI5-sponsored test to see how crazy you can be and still have the truth movement suck up to you, or whether he performed that role without even realising it himself, he still performed that role and the truth movement’s response was ‘say whatever you like, as long as you say 9/11 was an inside job I don’t care if you completely undermine the rest of the movement with bullshit’.

          That’s the real lesson of this episode, whether you find my argument about Shayler compelling or not.

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            You weren’t asked for another example of something you consider compelling evidence, but what you would consider compelling evidence in this case (the question of Shayler’s authenticity). If you were on a jury and refused to believe someone was guilty, and you were asked what would convince you that they were guilty, and you replied ‘the sort of evidence that shows that hydrogen and oxygen are the constituents of water’ then that would be a nonsense argument.

            Yes, I knew that my reply would be non-satisfactory to some. See my reply above to Olivier with respect to this.

            There is a chance that Shayler is just completely insane and wrong about everything. Either he’s that, or he is fake, but in either case he shouldn’t be taken seriously by the truth movement. So whether he was an MI5-sponsored test to see how crazy you can be and still have the truth movement suck up to you, or whether he performed that role without even realising it himself, he still performed that role and the truth movement’s response was ‘say whatever you like, as long as you say 9/11 was an inside job I don’t care if you completely undermine the rest of the movement with bullshit’.

            I don’t like your matter-of-fact style where you state it has to be either this or that; this particular case Shayler is either insane or fake.
            I’m sorry but Shayler does not have to be either insane or fake. There are many more possibilities.

            That’s the real lesson of this episode, whether you find my argument about Shayler compelling or not.

            This is another problem I have with your piece. You treat it as a lesson; as if you are teaching people what Shayler is all about.
            When in fact you are not sure of yourself, hence the title ‘Is David Shayler a Fake Whistleblower?’ instead of ‘David Shayler is a Fake Whistleblower’.

            I am curious to know what prompted you to write this piece about Shayler, almost 20 years after he blew his whistle?
            Has he been in the news recently?

  20. Ribbit-Mark says:

    TomS:
    But Shayler’s approach has always been very tabloid, he’s someone who is clearly trying to draw attention to himself. Perhaps he’s a bona fide nutter. Perhaps he’s just a raging narcissist with a taste for exotic theories. Or perhaps he’s a fake whistleblower. Even if he’s real, he’s a pretty crap whistleblower.

    I am glad to see you have added two more possibilities. I’m sure if you try harder you can come up with a few more. 🙂

    Fetzer is certainly untrustworthy, but that alone does not make someone an agent, of course. He is very good at avoiding logical criticisms, for a philosophy professor. I remember getting into a great argument with Fetzer about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.

    I agree with your assessment of Fetzer. I had a similar problem in an e-mail exchange with him where he avoided logical criticism. He could dish it out, but not take it.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Well, I like Fetzer, having interacted with him on a social level, and mind you this was in a setting where it was pretty much only he and I who were the “conspiracy theorists” in the mix. This was a philosophy conference, and I will hand it to him that he doesn’t shirk from confronting his colleagues about accepting official narratives. He has taken some hits in that realm, been banished from talks and publications and such.

      I do think he tends to be stubborn in his positions, which is why he defies logic at times when he should just concede. But, really, that kind of stubbornness is not uncommon in academic circles. I have mentioned his problems on 9/11, particularly with video fakery, but in JFK research I do consider him a solid authority. He was among the first to point out the problems with the Zapruder film, which was most definitely altered.

  21. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Olivier said:
    I didn’t mean to ask you for a breakdown or another analysis on Tom’s episode. What I meant was: Can you give me an example, a hypothetical piece of information, which Tom did not provide, which would convince you of (or rather make you bet on) the intentionality of Shayler’s discrediting effect on the 9/11 truth movement?

    I will likely disappoint you again on this. We aren’t on the same page with it yet.
    I don’t believe Shayler has had any discrediting effect on the 9/11 truth movement, (intentional or non-intentional).
    So unless Shayler himself said he was intentionally trying to discredit the 9/11 truth movement (as per per your example) I wouldn’t be able to come up with anything.

    Is a high profile person who promotes the no-planer theory, by default, discrediting the 9/11 truth movement? I don’t think so. Do I wish they would not promote the no-plane theory? Certainly, but the truth movement has such a large and diverse worldwide presence that minor turbulence here and there won’t be sufficient to cause any noticeable damage to their cause.

    Next, what to do with a requirement for proof that renders proofs very improbable, even in case the thesis to be proven is actually true. Would there be a practical advantage in relaxing the quality requirements on such proof, or would that just generate random opinions with no discernible relation to reality?
    I suspect there is an advantage, but haven’t dug deep into the question.

    While there certainly would be merits in refining a system to ascertain the strength of proofs, it is too theoretical in my mind to have any practical value.
    So I will leave this type of work for someone else to embark on.

    Getting back to Shayler and the subject of this podcast…
    I see four possibilities (not in any particular order):

    Shayler is a genuine whistleblower (no longer employed by MI5)
    – He discovered MI5’s involvement with the Gaddafi assassination attempt and could not continue with MI5 after that, had to blow whistle.
    -He also happens to be a very colourful chap, an excellent charismatic public speaker who craves publicity, a bit of a kook, etc. etc.

    Shayler is a genuine whistleblower (still employed by MI5)
    -He discovered MI5’s involvement with the Gaddafi assassination attempt and could not continue with MI5 after that, had to blow whistle
    -MI5 later was able to get him to sell his soul; convince him that despite their involvement in the assassination attempt, there were legitimate reasons why they did it, he should come back to work for MI5 because X/Y/Z etc.
    -They would allow him to continue with his flashy life, but still work undercover for MI5.
    -Shayler agrees.

    Shayler is a fake whistleblower (no longer employed by MI5)
    -He made up the story about MI5’s involvement with the Gaddafi assassination attempt,
    -Then quit MI5 to make a career sensationalizing his fabricated tale and various other hot topics: 9/11, 7/7 bombings etc.

    Shayler is a fake whistleblower (still employed by MI5)
    -MI5 planned his whistleblowing from the very beginning and all his high profile moves since then:
    -MI5 did attempt to have Gaddafi assassinated, but Shayler wasn’t put off by the botched attempt at all.
    -Instead MI5 arranged to have him ‘blow the whistle’ on their assassination plan.
    -MI5 supervised his publicity stunts exercised in France
    -MI5 supervised his 9/11 truther involvement, no-planer proponent etc.
    -MI5 supervised his Messiah declaration
    -But what would MI5 stand to gain from it all?

    Of the four possibilities, I believe the first is the closest to the truth.

    • “Is a high profile person who promotes the no-planer theory, by default, discrediting the 9/11 truth movement?”

      Well the un-asked part of this question is important: discredited in whose eyes? Which then begs the question of whether those eyes matter.

      If a) the goal of the truth movement is to push 9/11 skepticism into the mainstream, and b) most of the mainstream is desperate not to have 9/11 skepticism, then c) hell yes, “no-planers” and “DEW-ers” discredit the living pants out of the truth movement because it gives people the escape hatch they so desperately crave. All they have to do is hang their hat on one ridiculous claim and it absolves them from the responsibility to think.

      You can remain as calm and reasonable and persuasive as you please, and only succeed in looking crazier and crazier to such people. The blame as such does not fall precisely, certainly not entirely, on the “no-planers” et al, true enough: there are layers and layers of psychology and propaganda to share that burden. But *would* the injection of evidence-free extravagance be an effective technique towards discrediting a movement, *if* it were an intentional psyop? Hard to argue no, it seems to me.

      “While there certainly would be merits in refining a system to ascertain the strength of proofs, it is too theoretical in my mind to have any practical value.” This is equivalent to saying there’s no practical value in seeking truth, which I don’t believe you really mean. In any case, fortunately, all this theoretical work has been very well done already by philosophers of science. In a nutshell: seeking irrefutable proof is kind of a fool’s errand and therefore never the goal. Science never proves anything; it disproves things. That leads to theories, always in a sense tentative, waiting to be disproved, which leads to better theories, harder to disprove, so we always have (in real science, as opposed to politicized science) the latest “best guess” based on available evidence and a decent grasp of basic probability theory.

      With reference to Shayler’s “realness” it’s inconclusive, yes. I suppose it depends on one’s personal inclination to consider him a fool or a tool. Ultimately, as Tom argues, it’s the effect that matters. And the effect isn’t great.

      • van der Reijden in a way proposes this method to falsify the hypothesis of disinformation being intentional:

        1. Hypothesis: Person X is intentionally spreading disinformation Y
        2. Falsification method: Explain the falsity of Y to X and if X then changes his/her opinion, he’s probably OK.

        It is of course a simplification because what he considers an explanation may in fact not be, but you have to start somewhere.

        http://isgp.nl/2014_08_Coast_to_Coast_AM_cult#911

        • van der Reijden’s 4 Establishment model itself looks like disinformation
          of course, if you are out to spread disinformation your best strategy may be to purport to be fighting the “DisInfoWars”

          • Anything specific you disagree with there other than what you mentioned below?
            https://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/09/20/probable-cause-with-sibel-edmonds-hastert-case-clinton-scandals-fbi-the-1996-cointelpro-ii-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-20825

            Let me anticipate:
            – His articles are so long that everybody is going to run away from them
            – He has pictures of UFOs/Atlantis on his homepage.

            I haven’t read his UFO articles, but would be curious to hear if there’s anything actually untrue being written there. We can then apply his own test on him: See if he corrects them.

          • no, i don’t have strong opinions on any of these issues, nor on the plane issue.
            his articles are great, what i have read anyhow, his work on Le Cercle in particular. as flawed as van der Rejden’s 4 Establishment thesis is, in my opinion, he has the great merit of stating it up front, and he gives good historical grounds for it.
            Bob Parry also has great stuff. Sy Hersh as well–poor Tony Cartalucci still cites almost biblically the Hersh “Redirection” article which is coming up on a decade old. i also have learned a lot from Tom Secker.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        John says:
        “Is a high profile person who promotes the no-planer theory, by default, discrediting the 9/11 truth movement?”

        Well the un-asked part of this question is important: discredited in whose eyes? Which then begs the question of whether those eyes matter.

        If a) the goal of the truth movement is to push 9/11 skepticism into the mainstream, and b) most of the mainstream is desperate not to have 9/11 skepticism, then c) hell yes, “no-planers” and “DEW-ers” discredit the living pants out of the truth movement because it gives people the escape hatch they so desperately crave. All they have to do is hang their hat on one ridiculous claim and it absolves them from the responsibility to think.

        You can remain as calm and reasonable and persuasive as you please, and only succeed in looking crazier and crazier to such people. The blame as such does not fall precisely, certainly not entirely, on the “no-planers” et al, true enough: there are layers and layers of psychology and propaganda to share that burden. But *would* the injection of evidence-free extravagance be an effective technique towards discrediting a movement, *if* it were an intentional psyop? Hard to argue no, it seems to me.

        I can see the point you are trying to make.

        I view every legitimate 9/11 truther as being on the same team (whether they are no-planers, DEW’er, nuker’s etc. or plain vanilla )

        However, the media should know there are no spokespeople for 9/11 truthers. We haven’t unfortunately organized to get to that stage and perhaps never will.

        Whenever a ‘name’ truther speaks out, they are doing so on their own.
        Even if they appear to be discrediting the movement with misinformed claims/information, they are still keeping the cause alive by bringing its attention to the general public. I still see this as a good thing. Many reasonable people are still waking up to 9/11.

        If this introduction to the cause (albeit a misinformed one) can kindle an interest so they will do research on their own it’s all good in my estimation. This is actually how I opened my eyes to the reality of 9/11.

        “While there certainly would be merits in refining a system to ascertain the strength of proofs, it is too theoretical in my mind to have any practical value.” This is equivalent to saying there’s no practical value in seeking truth, which I don’t believe you really mean. In any case, fortunately, all this theoretical work has been very well done already by philosophers of science. In a nutshell: seeking irrefutable proof is kind of a fool’s errand and therefore never the goal. Science never proves anything; it disproves things. That leads to theories, always in a sense tentative, waiting to be disproved, which leads to better theories, harder to disprove, so we always have (in real science, as opposed to politicized science) the latest “best guess” based on available evidence and a decent grasp of basic probability theory.

        You are correct, I didn’t express myself properly. What I meant to say was I would much rather spend my free time working on more concrete things than building theoretical hierarchies.

        With reference to Shayler’s “realness” it’s inconclusive, yes. I suppose it depends on one’s personal inclination to consider him a fool or a tool. Ultimately, as Tom argues, it’s the effect that matters. And the effect isn’t great.

        First off, as I mentioned with Tom, Shayler is not black and white and we shouldn’t try to characterize him with these broad strokes.
        People don’t have to be forced to consider him as either a ‘fool’ or a ‘tool’. I personally don’t believe he is either one.

        After re-reading Tom’s last response to mine, I have to say I would agree with it with a slight modification:

        TomS:
        So whether he was an MI5-sponsored test to see how crazy you can be and still have the truth movement suck up to you, or whether he performed that role without even realising it himself, he still performed that role and the truth movement’s response was ‘say whatever you like, as long as you say 9/11 was an inside job I don’t care if you completely undermine the rest of the movement with bullshit’.

        If he changed that to read:

        “So whether he was an MI5-sponsored test to see how crazy you can be and still have the truth movement suck up to you, or whether he performed that role without even realising it himself, he still performed that role and the truth movement’s response was ‘say whatever you like, as long as you say 9/11 was an inside job I don’t care if you support some oddball theories of the movement’.”

        I would agree with it.

        • Well. I suppose we could go around on this ride indefinitely, which would be even more of a waste of time than building theoretical hierarchies. I’ll just say that when you say things that begin with “the media should”, you are (in my opinion) already dancing deeply in the dark off in Wonderland somewhere. The media *should* do a lot of things that they show no signs of doing.

          The rest of your argument is essentially that anything that brings the 9/11 cause to the general public’s attention is a good thing. I disagree entirely. When it brings it to the public attention as an object of ridicule, particularly when it seems to deserve it, I very much doubt it will open more minds than it closes.

          Indeed I think what is more likely than opening new minds is making the already-open minds just want to walk away in disgust, to live quietly with their cynicism and not bother any more with the public and its attention. There are other things to do with your life than push large stones up hill all day every day.

          That would be letting the bastards win of course. But then some bastards do know how to win.

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            john says:

            The rest of your argument is essentially that anything that brings the 9/11 cause to the general public’s attention is a good thing. I disagree entirely. When it brings it to the public attention as an object of ridicule, particularly when it seems to deserve it, I very much doubt it will open more minds than it closes.

            I will expand a little more on this and also invite others to discuss the notion of “discrediting the 9/11 truth movement”.

            As I alluded to earlier, it was someone who was supposedly ‘discrediting the 9/11 truth movement’ who piqued my interest in it and got me started doing my own research into it.

            To my mind, there are a limited number of ways that 9/11 enters the MSM today.

            -A 9/11 anniversary will bring about the re-hashing of the usual sob/sympathy stories of 9/11 victims etc., the terrible tragedy that it was etc.
            -A 9/11 researcher will make a breakthrough discovery (Steven Jones) and/or write a scientific paper (Niels Harrit) etc.
            -Another piece of 9/11 debris is discovered (human remains or aircraft parts etc.).
            -More data comes to light on deaths from ground zero-related illnesses.
            -More 9/11 insurance claims etc.
            -A 9/11 ‘witness’ will admit they lied ie. Steve Rannazzisi a comedian admitting that his 9/11 escape story was a lie.
            -Occasionally a truther (‘kook’ or ‘legitimate’) will somehow manage to get interviewed on TV or radio.
            -A public name (actor/author etc.) will decide to speak out on the topic (Asner, Sheen, Ventura etc.).

            Because overall, 9/11 is so seldom mentioned in the MSM it is my belief that anything that can bring the topic into the consciousness of the public is a good thing. Whether the person is totally off the wall, or the subject is about insurance fraud or what have you, people may end up following an online link, diving into the topic and making discoveries they never imagined possible.

            As far as the notion of “discrediting the 9/11 truth movement” is concerned, I don’t believe anyone is in a position to accomplish this.
            For as I pointed out earlier, there is no united ‘9/11 truth movement’. It is a concept but nothing more.

            There are groups all around the world who gather together in an effort to study 9/11 and possibly bring justice to those who deserve it as well as individuals who study the events of 9/11, but there is no ‘9/11 truth movement’ spokesperson or spokespeople.
            One group will promote this theory, another group will promote that theory. There may be overlap here and there etc.
            But one group will not take ownership for another individual or group who makes what they consider an outrageous claim or statement (Shayler, Reynolds, Fetzer etc.)

            This being the case it is impossible to discredit the movement. And how can you harm the reputation of a ‘movement’ that never established any meaningful reputation to being with, in the MSM’s eyes?

          • I understand your point that there is no such thing as a monolithic Truth Movement organized as a voice, and that it is impossible to discredit something that does not exist. I don’t in any way dispute that bit of logic, I just think it sails a bit wide of the point.

            The point, I believe, is — your own experience notwithstanding — poorly backed extravagant claims cast their unfortunate shadow over anybody who expresses skepticism about 9/11.

            We each have our own Line of Crazy as Guillermo memorably put it. Just as there is no central Truth Movement, there is no authoritative arbiter of lunacy, nor would we want one. Yet not all claims are the same. They can be evaluated according to standards of evidence and falsifiability. Some bear the weight of scrutiny, others not so much.

            And if I were an intelligence operative who wanted to ensure that as few people as possible bothered to question the official narrative, one of the things I would certainly do would be to pollute the critical waters with massive amounts of batshit. So if someone with intelligence connections seems to be doing that, it would be naive in the extreme not to question their motives.

  22. Hi Tom Shit head: you bet my comment was worth the effort… even the electricity in the f’n key board.

    oh well, I don’t agree with your simple Simon view of things.

  23. @Ronald Orovitz

    Whether Fetzer is an “agent” though, I’m not prepared to accept.

    There’s a method of ‘creating’ a bunch of people that will propagate and believe in a desired message without ever telling them what that message should be, i.e. without them obviously being agents.

    The method is to find people who by themselves already believe in your message and subsequently to give them a platform, which will lead to more followers, which in turn you can invite to conferences etc.

    Hopsicker has found what he thinks is evidence of this going on, namely Adnan Kashoggi (of Iran Contra fame) indirectly providing funds to the Toronto International Citizen’s Inquiry into 9/11. (The Iran Contra boys being high on the list of suspects for the 9/11 event):

    1. Kashoggi — owns — GenesisIntermedia.com — employs — John Gray — funds — 9/11 conference.

    2. Kashoggi — deals arms for — Iran Contra Operation — employs — Barry Seal (drugs smuggler) — buys learjet 1 from — Whittington Brothers (drugs smugglers) — sell learjet 2 to — Florida Air — has CEO — Rudi Dekkers — Huffman Aviation — trains — Atta & Al-Shehhi

    https://web.archive.org/web/20041009141002/http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6712004.html

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Oliver,

      Good point, but this could also be a way of tainting legitimate inquiry, especially if someone like a Kashoggi expects that his cash will be outed.

      I gave the Hopsicker article a cursory read, but unless I missed it, it didn’t go into what kinds of theories the International Citizen’s Inquiry trafficked in, which might indicate what is being targeted. Doing a search… not much is coming up as it was over 10 years ago, but here’s an interesting quote at the header of this article: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/baker1.html

      “Never forget. The most effective disinformation campaigns are 90% correct.” – overheard at Phase II of the International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11, Toronto

      Well, that’s a better number than what Gordon Duff gave for Veteran’s Today – 60% and saying “If I Didn’t Write False Information I Wouldn’t be Alive…” He’s taking the life insurance policy defense. Fetzer of course was associated with VT for several years, but then Duff fired him and deleted his articles when Fetzer jumped on the Jade Helm bandwagon. In the aftermath, Fetzer made an interesting revelation, that Duff never paid him a dime for his numerous articles, when he was among the top authors at the site, which (as anyone who visits it knows) is heavily ad-saturated. So it would seem that Duff is running a racket, with all that ad revenue coming in and (if VT’s other authors aren’t being paid) little going out. Incidentally, Wayne Madsen has nothing good to say about Duff, and I think that may be because Duff once revealed one of Madsen’s insider sources… But now I’m just getting gossipy so I’ll stop.

      • what kinds of theories the International Citizen’s Inquiry trafficked in

        Without wanting to speak for Hopsicker, this is my assessment of his thoughts:
        His strength is in going after documentation and witnesses to the Florida crime scene. His weakness is that he broadly speaking dismisses everything else as fools & tools. So for him all 9/11 conferences are a priori suspect and should be avoided.

        His model for 9/11 is that under the cover of Iran-Contra remnant drugs smuggling protected by the authorities, a bunch of crazy Saudis inserted their planes project and it ended up proceeding because drugs smuggling is a protected occupation in the US, or Florida more particularly. He tends to dismiss the idea that there was intentional help from within the US to let / make 9/11 proceed, he considers all that smoke and mirrors, being thrown up by Kashoggi and his Iran-Contra operators.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20040605143228/http://www.madcowprod.com/index53.html

        He does have a point about some of his clues about people involved being much more concrete than the more theoretical musings about building collapse and remote control, although I disagree with his a priori dismissal.

        • Hopsicker’s angle is a good one, no doubt. But yes, for a guy who trades on the idea that the government has not made its case about the 19 hijackers, and who has uncovered so many shenanigans in Florida, and who is so insistent on the value of investigation, he sure seems to have a narrow field of vision. It’s like he’s never heard of patsies.

        • In fact listening back to the Ellsberg interview here, it’s clear that Sibel en Daniel Hopsicker come to the same conclusion, namely that Al-Qaeda is financed by drug trading which in turn is a protected activity.

          http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20050826-Fri1200.mp3

          I’d be curious to hear Sibel and Daniel Hopsicker have a roundtable discussion.

  24. This analysis from Harry Frankfurt (professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton), taken from his incisive treatise “On Bullshit”, seems pertinent to this discussion somehow:

    “Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

Speak Your Mind