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.

{{pause}}

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.

{{pause}}

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

{{pause}}

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.

Indeed.

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.

-reprehensor.