WHY SHAYLER/MACHON'S VIEWS ON 9/11 CHANGED--THEIR VERSION
 
Let us be clear--we do not object to anyone, including Shayler and Machon, changing their views on any subject, including 9/11.  However, given (as chronicled extensively in NFB) their track record of evasion, dissimulation and total fabrication, it is appropriate to critically and dispassionately examine when how and why they claim to have changed their minds.  One might have thought the necessity of doing this would occur to 9/11 sceptics themselves, believing as they do in a gigantic overarching cover up, in which government agents (and even victims of 7/7 like Rachael North) are certainly implicated.  Sadly, they hadn't thought of it--no worries, we've done the work.
 
To recap the Shayler argument on why he is concerned about 9/11: from the start he was worried about the debris being removed, which points to the US security agencies having something to hide.  There are, however, three problems with this 'reason' as an explanation for Shayler's conversion to 9/11 'scepticism'.
 
First, if he has genuinely had these doubts since 2001, as revealed in the June 2005 Alex Jones interview, Shayler has missed countless opportunities to raise them.  He could have done so in his press articles shortly after 9/11, in his Punch column, many interviews around the time of his conviction, or even when speaking to Hollingsworth and Fielding for their 2003 book.  Much the same applies to Machon, who as late as her May 2005 book appears to accept the view 9/11 was an attack on America, not the 'inside job' she and her partner now claim so energetically. 
 
The second weakness in Shayler's claim to have 'always'  had doubts about 9/11 due to the debris story, can be found in the landmark memoir of New York fireman Richard Picciotto [22].   Reading Picciotto, the story about all the debris being swiftly taken away is bollocks.  As late as November 6 2001 Picciotto was at the debris field, and witnessed an accident there where a fireman fell through a hole in the debris.  In his words, "after the commotion had died down somewhat...I inched over to the opening.  I was astonished to see this enormous drop...dropping thirty feet and opening into the area about the size of a small gymnasium" [23].   So, far from the debris being spirited away instantly, there were still debris piles, being worked on, at least 30 feet deep.  Given his record, why believe Shayler over a New York fireman?  Also relevant to debunking Shayler's immediate removal of debris claim is the April 2006 coroner's ruling that New York police detective James Zadroga died from respiratory disease incurred after spending 470 hours sifting through the twin towers smouldering ruins [24].  Why, exactly, would he be doing that if all relevant debris was removed straight away?
 
The third reason Shayler's argument about early suspicions concerning 9/11 doesn't ring true is he himself departs from it--in one recent film put out by Tony Gosling Shayler brazenly states "when I was following 9/11 in the media as a former counter-terrorist officer...like many others I thought this was incompetence on behalf of the Anerican intelligence services and government[25].   Contrast this with Shayler's statement to Alex Jones 20/6/05 (less than nine months earlier) quoted above that he had concerns about debris from when he "first started" looking at 9/11.  Vintage Shayler, and both versions can't be right--while you're pondering that Versions 3 & 4 will be along shortly.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHY THEIR VIEWS ON 9/11 REALLY CHANGED
 
Following Shayler/Machon's twists and turns is tricky, but not impossible.  The most charitable interpretation is a financial motive.  The growing 9/11 movement offers a better opportunity to hawk their book than the dwindling British left where they had arguably outstayed their welcome.  One example is the fact Shayler was reluctantly forced to back down from standing against Tony Blair in the 2005 election, as the STWC wanted to support a far more crediuble candidate--Reg Keys.  That must have hurt.
 
Another interpretation of the pair's motivations, not necessarily ruling out the first is that Shayler/Machon have an ongoing relationship with, and are performing tasks for, some faction or other of the secret state.  The pair's change of mind could be seen as a dishonest feint, conducted as part of ongoing secret state disinformation/intelligence-gathering operations.
 
Before dismissing this second possibility out of hand, consider the following.  A paradox lies at the heart of the relationship between Shayler, Machon and 9/11 sceptics.  The reason (presumably) why they take Machon/Shayler so seriously is that the two are former (?) MI5 officers--intelligence insiders.  For the sake of argument, let us suppose that 9/11 was, as most sceptics believe, an 'inside job'.  Surely Shayler/Machon were in a position to find this out before June 2005, nearly four years after the event?  If they knew the facts before then, why peddle a different thesis--incompetence--to the one they now affect to believe in?  Using 9/11 sceptic logic, if 9/11 was an inside job, such a criminal enterprise had to have involved senior members of the US security and intelligence service.  It also implies the involvement of the British state, either as direct participants, or condoning the cover up--over 100 Britons were killed that day.  Come 7/7, as with 9/11, Shayler & Machon call for a public inquiry.  If the state (or at least the secret apparatus of such) can do something as enormous as 9/11, surely they can swat away a public enquiry?
 
AN MI5/MI6 AL QAEDA PLOT?
 
Shayler/Machon's stated beliefs include his crucial filmed comment of August 2005 [26], after referring to both MI5 and MI6, that in the "mid 1990s the services...let thousands of Al Qaeda members and associates into Britain.  The reason they did that of course was to create a new terrorist threat.  I stress they did this knowingly".  Given he and Machon were in MI5 at the precise time this happened, why exclude them from culpability here?  Especially as this was never mentioned before 7/7 by either Shayler or Machon.  Yet given he worked in G9A (Libyan dept.) Shayler shared a line-manager (Director G) with the 'Islamic terrorist' sub-section (G9C), and probably even a desk!
 
The already-cited 2003 edition of 'Defending the Realm', despite referring to a "growing number of exiles from Islamic countries" settling in the UK, also says the "full significance of what was happening was never fully appreciated by MI5" [27].  So, if we are to believe Shayler's comments of August 2005, he & Machon (and perhaps Hollingsworth and Fielding) have, in recent years, been "knowingly" complicit by silence (at best) in MI5/MI6 plans to "create a new terrorist threat".  Indeed, on 21/6/05, two months before his August 2005 bombshell claim about the spooks and Al Qaeda: Shayler had this morsel to offer: "certainly MI5 will be interested in Muslim communities because of the rise of the threat of Islamic terrorism"--no hint here they had 'created' the threat.  Even more damingly, at the same (London) meeting, just 16 days before the 7/7 London bombs, Shayler offered this pearl of wisdom: "even if there is a threat from Islamic terrorism it's not that great.  The chances of dying in an attack are virtually nil...We are scared of dying in terrorist attacks because of headlines in newspapers.  Stop taking the tabloids" [28].  Using 9/11-7/7 believers logic, and his own 'revelations' of August 2005, Shayler was engaging in a pre-7/7 disinformation exercise.  Indeed, Machon/Shayler's infiltration of the 9/11 truth movement makes far more sense as a pre-7/7 strategic positioning of known spook assets than accusing Rachael North or activist MIlan Rai of being such, as some 9/11 activists do.
 
Again being charitable, if neither Machon or Shayler were privy to 'inside knowledge' between 2001-2005, why accord their views any more credence than those of David Icke, or others in the LIzard community?  Fundamentally, if what 9/11 sceptics say is true, Shayler/Machon's untruthful version of their conversion to this truth is a good indicator their movement role is intentionally harmful, preventing activists becoming effective.
 
THAT NEW-TIME RELIGION?
 
It may well be--and we don't want to prejudge the NFB editor's ongoing 9/11 research here--that we are misunderstanding the 9/11 movement's true significance.  Some issues do trouble us though.  One author of this article attended the 9/11 Truth meeting at the 2005 Anarchidt Bookfair, and has since taken part in forum discussions on the British 9/11 Truth Campaign web-site, as well as monitoring other internet debates, such as those at www.urban75.com.  The zeal of some 9/11 campaigners, and intolerance towards those not accepting their 'truth' has a sectarian, indeed millenarian, feel.  Conversely, any shyster pronouncing themselves a believer is naively welcomed.
 
The British Truth Campaign web-site reports repeatedly attempts to take the '9/11 message' to other campaigns and organisations, who have the nerve to campaign in their own specific fields without any reference to 9/11.  Should an organisation prove immune to their charms, 9/11 activists then either rubbish their campaign, or pooh-pooh its leadership, whilst regarding the grass roots membership as still open to approach on the issue of 9/11 [29].  This is not always the response however--one poster, Ally, even informs us "Clearly NO2ID are yet more fake opposition.  Very limited hang out.  Any group not exposing 9/11 are part of the cover up" [30].  The world seems very clear cut from his/her perspective.
 
As well as showing an interest in the campaign against ID cards, British 9/11 campaigners also comment on the 7/7/05 London bombings.  Here the treatment handed out to a survivor, Rachael North, gives cause for concern.  Caught up in the King's Cross bombing, an interview she gave to 9/11 sceptic Alex Cox is discussed at huge length on the site.  The intolerance shown towards this survivor for having the temerity to concentrate on her 7/7 experiences rather than broaden her approach into talking about 9/11 is astonishing.  The attitude, like that of any cult is--you are either with us or against us [31].
 
Seeing 9/11 true believers as a cult goes a long way to explaining why they are so uncritical about Shayler and Machon, and irresponsibly provided him with a platform and her with an ideal intelligence-gathering opportunity (as Secretary) with no discernible dissent.  If the Britain & Ireland 9/11 Truth Campaign are genuinely serious, they must act on the Shayler/Machon 9/11 activities outlined here.  Doing so will lead to Machon/Shayler denouncing them as state 'penetrated' like the STWC.  Without, of course, giving the details.  Not confronting Machon and Shayler, however, will prove the British & Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign gullible security compromised fools.  Your call.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
We hope to have set out that the current political trajectory of Annie Machon and David Shayler is, rather like their past history, contradictory, dishonest and at times downright suspicious.  Those genuinely interested in finding out the truth about 9/11 are not well served by these chameleons.  It is time the cuckoos were moved on, permanently.  Machon's services as 9/11 Truth Campaign Secretary should be immediately dispensed with.  We also urge activists in other organisations, such as the campaign against ID cards,  to be extremely cautious if approached by Machon, Shayler or their minions.  Let (almost) the last word go to Shayler himself: "I do not know about [some] things.  I am better off admitting that than trying to impress people with invention" [32].  Shayler and Machon have certainly tried yet more invention--but continue to fail to impress.
 
FIRST PUBLISHED IN NOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND 7 JUNE 2006 copyright NFB
.
TO READ FOOTNOTES SCROLL DOWN TO BOTTOM OF PAGE 
SHAYLER/MACHON RESEARCH MATERIALS AVAILABLE AS BELOW
either pay by cheque/postal order/International Money Order (Sterling) payable to  Larry O'Hara only: send to Notes From the Borderland BM Box 4769 London WC1N 3XX England
or click on cart icon if you have a credit card to pay by Pay-Pal.  For some obscure technical reason, payments only taken in US $--but you will only be charged UK Sterling equivalent & no transaction free.  Postage included
If you do not see a permutation of things you want to purchase, either visit
NOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND issue 7  containing the above article, plus 7/7 book review and much more besides, as well as NOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND issue 8 which will contain updates on Machon/Shayler, the origins of Al Qaeda, & further 7/7 material
 World ?11.00
Europe ?9.50
   
 
UK ?7.00
DVD OF DEBATE 21/6/05 between Dr Larry O'Hara (NFB editor) & David Shayler--the only time to date this spook has been critically questioned at length
Specify if you want DVD-R or DVD+R
 
?6.00 UK
 
?8.00 EUROPE
 
?9.00 WORLD
THE ULTIMATE MACHON/SHAYLER INVESTIGATION PACK, CONSISTING OF
21/6/05 DEBATE DVDNOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND  issues 2, 5, 6, 7 & the forthcoming issue 8, extracts from issues 3/4,  as well a copy of the acclaimed book   'Turning Up the Heat: MI5 After the Cold War'--a contemporary critique (and counter-narrative) of the operations Machon and Shayler were implicated in during their time at MI5 and still haven't come clean on.  Then you'll know why we don't trust them an inch/cm.  For a broad outline of the contents of the above publications with reference to Machon/ Shayler visit http://www.borderland.co.uk/notes_from_the_borderland_002.htm
EUROPE
?30.00
WORLD
?36.00
 
 
 
UK ?25.00
FOOTNOTES TO NFB 7 ARTICLE ABOVE
 
1)   'Defending the Realm--MI5 and the Shayler Affair' (Andre Deutsch, 1999) p.viii
2)  Notes From the Borderland issues 2-6 inclusive
3)   Artists Guild (Lewes Sussex) 2005
4)   DVD available from NFB (see above)
5)   Lobster 50 December 2005 p.29
6)   Sunday Express 30/9/01
7)   Mail on Sunday  23/9/01
8)   Andre Deutsch 2003
9)   'Defending the Realm' 2003 p.viii
10) Hollingsworth and Fielding (2003) p.14.  Shayler's submission to the Cabinet Office is Appendix 2 of
Hollingsworth & Fielding (1999)
11)  Machon (2005) p.14
12)  Machon (2005) p.283
13)  For more on these viewpoints see '9/11 Revealed--Challenging the facts behind the War on Terror' by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan (Robinson 2005).  Some silly claims about 9/11 are skilfully dismantled in 'The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories' by James McConnachie and Robin Tudge (Rough Guides 2005).
14)  'Stop the War--the Story of Britain's biggest mass movement' by Andrew Murray and Lindsey German (Bookmarks 2005) p.12
15)  All quotes from p.15 op. cit.
16)  Machon (2005) p.13
17)  21/6/05 Shayler-O'Hara Debate DVD
18)  NFB recording of 25/10/05 meeting.
19)  NFB recording of 25/10/05 meeting
20)  Shayler tape-recorded interview 20/6/05 www.prisonplanet.com
21)  'Revelation Tape' interview of Shayler by Starbuck, conducted 20/8/05
22)  'Last Man Down--the Fireman's Story', Richard 'Pitch' Picciotto (Orion 2003)
23)  ibid. p.242
24)  'Autopsy Links Policeman Death to Sept. 11' Amy Westfeldt (AP) 11/4/06
25)  'Shayler on 9/11 Part 1'  6/3/06  (911TruthBristol web-site)
26)  On the Alex Jones web-site www.prisonplanet.com (Undated August 2006 'Extra London Footage')
27)  'Defending the Realm' (2003) p.165-66
28)  Shayler-O'Hara Debate DVD 21/6/05
29)  See Annie Machon's post of 14/3/06 on STWC's leadership ignoring her belief that "9/11 is the root cause behind all these wars" (http://nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=3988&highlight= On the reluctance of the No2ID card campaign to get into bed with Ms Machon and co. see http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=4449&highlight=  28 March 2006
30)  ibid.
31)  see thread 'Rachael from N. London on Alex Cox's Forum' started 19/1/06 (nineeleven.co.uk web-site). NFB reserves the right to disagree, profoundly, with Rachael North's analysis--pertinent here is the way her experience, and even reality, has been insultingly traduced by some 9/11-7/7 campaigners. EDITOR NB: North was not "interviewed", rather contributed to the Cox forum 
32)  Shayler-O'Hara Debate DVD 21/6/05
 
 
 
two useful on-line resources on Machon/Shayler  are a Class War (anarchist) critique to be found at http://libcom.org/library/david-shayler-class-war-left-groups  and Steve Booth's (Green Anarchist editor) report of the 21/6/05 debate.
 RETURN TO HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE TO DEBATE THIS ARTICLE
NOTES FROM THE BORDERLAND WEB-SITE