Meet the No Planers

Published 11 September 2006

They believe there weren't any planes on 9/11, just missiles wrapped in holograms - and there weren't any London terrorists on 7/7 either. The new-wave conspiracy theorists aren't green-ink types: they're educated; they have secret service connections; they live in Highgate. By Brendan O'Neill

At first sight, David Shayler and Annie Machon's home in Highgate - the leafiest of London's leafy suburbs - looks like a picture of middle-class respectability. There are Japanese landscape paintings on the living-room walls. Shelves groan under the weight of hardback novels and books on politics. An Alsatian with a well-kept, glossy coat looks on curiously as Belinda McKenzie - the grandmotherly landlady of the house - serves tea in china cups with a plate of delicious shortbread biscuits. "Enjoy," she says in a soft, plummy English accent.

Then you notice the curiosities. On the table sits a document about the "controlled demolition" of the twin towers. The shelves hold books titled The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions and The New Pearl Harbor: disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. There's a stack of colourful leaflets advertising a club night called Truth 9/11, to take place in Brixton in a week's time, the "11" in "9/11" represented by two tall stereo speakers. DVDs litter a work desk. One is called 7/7: mind the gap. The cover of another, titled Loose Change, asks: "What if 9/11 were an inside job rather than the work of al-Qaeda . . . ?"

This cluttered house in the heart of respectable, latte-drinking Highgate doubles as the hub of the British and Irish 9/11 Truth Campaign. It's a loose group, founded in January 2004, which suspects precisely that 9/11 was an "inside job", organised and executed by a "shadowy elite" made up of individuals from the FBI, the CIA, the arms industry and politics. Shayler and Machon - the boyfriend-and-girlfriend former spies who famously left MI5 in 1996 after becoming disgruntled - are its leading lights. They've gone from being the Posh and Becks of the whistle-blowing world to something very like the Richard and Judy of the 9/11 conspiracy-theory set.

Sitting on the comfy couch, their cups of tea in hand, they try to convince me that the 11 September 2001 attacks were executed by elements in the west who wanted to launch wars and "make billions upon trillions of dollars".

"We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true," says Shayler. "The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire; they were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane." Machon nods. In black trousers and black top, this sophisticated blonde in her late thirties comes across more like a schoolmarm than a 9/11 anorak. "The Pentagon's anti-missile defence system would definitely have picked up and dealt with a commercial airliner. We can only assume that whatever hit the Pentagon was sending a friendly signal. A missile fired by a US military plane would have sent a friendly signal." She says this in a kind of Anna Ford-style newsreader's voice, as if she were speaking the truth and nothing but the truth. She takes another sip of tea.

Say the phrase "conspiracy theorist" (but don't say it to Shayler and Machon if you can help it, because they angrily deny being conspiracy theorists) and most people will think of those nutty militiamen in redneck areas of America who hate Big Government, or of taxi drivers with possibly anti-Semitic leanings in some hot, dusty backwater of the Middle East who revel in telling western clients in particular: "America and the Jew did 9/11." Yet, here in Highgate, I am talking to a man and woman who have worked in the British secret services and who, together with their landlady Belinda, a professional linguist, truly believe that American elements facilitated 9/11 in order to "justify their adventurism in oil-rich countries in the Middle East", in Shayler's words. Here we have a new kind of conspiracy theorist: the chattering conspiracist, respectable, well-read, articulate, but, I regret to report, no less cranky than those rednecks and misguided Kabul cabbies.

The 9/11 Truth Campaign tries to distance itself from the green-ink loons who have been spreading rumours about 9/11 ever since the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center. "In London we meet socially on the first Monday of every month, and for a discussion on the third Monday of every month," says the ever-chirpy Machon, as if describing a Women's Institute get-together to discuss knitting, rather than a meeting of individuals who think a dark cabal of nutters controls the world. Its activists - many of whom are fairly well-to-do, and who include lecturers, film-makers and other whistle-blowers - pore over footage and photos of the events of 9/11, furiously debate them online, and argue that, scientifically, the official version of events doesn't add up. For Belinda - who describes herself as the "tea-maker and dishwasher of the movement" and allows activists from outside London to stay at her home - this is about "getting to the historical truth of what happened".

Yet, for all their forensic pretensions, their views remain crankily conspiratorial and unfounded. Take the claim that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, which has been doing the rounds since the French journalist Thierry Meyssan published 9/11: the big lie in 2002. "Just look at the news footage," says Shayler. "You won't see any plane debris on the Pentagon lawn."

Truth-seekers on a mission

True, but there was plenty of plane debris inside the Pentagon, where Flight 77 entered and exploded. There are numerous photographs of the blackened belly of the Pentagon crash site, taken by officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other rescue workers, which clearly show airliner wheel hubs, landing gear, part of a nose cone and bits of fuselage in the smouldering rubble (I hate to have to do this, but if you don't believe me take a look here: www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm). What kind of warrior for historical truth doesn't pay attention to basic photographic evidence?

Or consider the claim that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition (which would have involved sinister individuals planting tonnes of dynamite in the weeks prior to 9/11 without being spotted by any of the good citizens of New York). The US National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the cause of the collapse - during which "some 200 technical experts reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs [and] analysed 236 pieces of steel" - and it found "no corroborating evidence" that the towers had been toppled by dynamite. There is a lot of scientific evidence there, yet it is ignored or discounted by the apparently scientifically minded truth-seekers of this campaign.

At times, the line between these middle-class campaigners' apparently "scientific investigations" and old-fashioned conspiracy-mongering seems uncomfortably thin. One of their leaflets has a web address for David Icke, the former sports presenter-turned-"Son of God" who thinks the world is run by a race of reptilian humanoids. Shayler says: "There is a Zionist conspiracy; that's a fact. And they were behind 9/11." Machon intervenes diplomatically: "Not everyone in the campaign shares that view."

Then things really go off the rails. I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, fuck it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."

The 7/7 photo "forgery"

What about 7/7? Some in the 9/11 Truth Campaign aren't "really into 7/7", in Belinda's words. But Shayler is. He recently finished making 7/7: mind the gap, a film in which he suggests that, given the late running of trains on that fateful day last year, the four bombers could not have blown themselves up in London at the times claimed. He also believes that the closed-circuit TV image of the four men entering Luton Station is a "Photoshop job - a forgery, and a bad one at that". He goes so far as to argue that those who forged the photo did it badly in order to send a signal to the rest of us. "This could be elements in the New World Order saying, 'Look, we're sick of lying. We've had enough.'"

So have I. The thought of behind-the-scenes suits being cajoled by their evil paymasters to create an image of four rucksack-wearing terrorists in order to cover up their own bombing of London is just too ludicrous. These 9/11 truth campaigners merely add a supposedly scientific gloss to already existing conspiracy theories, trying to make the ridiculous seem respectable. In the process, they actually do a disservice to "historical truth". History gets reduced to a mysterious force beyond our control, and politics - real politics - is imagined to be the preserve of unknown, faceless puppet-masters whom we can never hope to influence. And the rest of us are reduced to the status of helpless spectators, searching amid the rubble of 9/11 and the aftermath of 7/7 for signs of truth and meaning.

Post this article to

10 comments from readers

10 December 2006 at 06:34

I came to this site via a Google search for David Shayler, whom I saw interviewed on SkyNews in early December (2006). He apparently blind-sided the interviewer by diverging from the alleged topic of discussion to his bizaare assertions about 9/11, 7/7, et al. This really surprises me, as SkyNews must have known Shayler's background. And if so, why was the interviewer not prepared with some cogent challenges to the claims -- or, if not so prepared, at least with the evident question "Is Shayler making money out of the conspiracy theories?"; and with the evident observation that it is simply impossible in today's environment of whistle-blowing, resentments, leaks and tattle-tale profits to maintain secret a conspiracy involving tens or hundreds of persons. In the absence of such challenge, Shayler has doubtless won new foggy-headed adherents. In sum, a dis-service by a supposedly informative television program. I want to compliment Mr. O'Neill and New Statesmen for this succinct and intelligently written article. If all this seems unexplainably new to me, it's because I am not British and live on the Continent. RL

Raymond Denson
30 August 2007 at 17:07

I would like to ask Mr. O'Neill to explain the destruction of the third building, WTC No.7 It was a 47 storey skyscraper; it was not hit by a plane, but there were small fires on two floors. At 5.20 pm on the same day it collapsed in 6.6 seconds into its own footprint. and the collapse had the appearance of a controlled demolition, produced by explosives. Those who deride the "conspiracy theorists" should be ready to provide plausible explanations of the many mysterious aspects of the events of 9/11

Raymond Denson

eggthing
19 September 2007 at 18:06

In the absense of information the mind will invent things to fill a void. 911 was never properly investigated. The budget for investigation was 5% that of Bill Clinton's sexual drama. This interviewer started off a bias against "conspiracy theorists". He had dismissed the claims while only looking superficially at the evidence. The debris at the Pentagon did not match the plane it was claimed to be.

austin
27 November 2007 at 14:15

Mr. O'Neill has willfully distorted and mis-represented any rational questioning of the official description of the events of 9/11. to say "plenty of plane debris inside the Pentagon" is pure fiction. there was one jet engine, and it is not a jet engine that belongs on Boeing 757-223.

by focusing on the most extreme and unfounded of one mans veiws, O'Neill has done a great disservice to those who are merely looking for a more rational explanation that that jet-fuel melted titanium, which is scientifically impossable, whichever way you look at it.

Yet another whitewash from the Mainstream media.

If you are interested, "Loose Change" is on google video, its makes an interesting case, at the very least.

Joe Miz
07 December 2007 at 15:07

I would at the very least like an explination of how a 110 story (approx.) can "collapse" in on itself in about 9 seconds, the same exact time an object falls due to gravity while uneffected by any object below it. Of course, we know there were about seventy stories below the point of impact, which were supposedly undamaged concrete and reinforced steel. It is important to note that while dismissing the theory of demolition, the author explicitly states the use of dynamite. If he had done his research adequately, he would have known that the leading hypothesis is the use of thermite, or possibly thermate, in a shape charge which leaves sulfur dioxide residue. sulfur dioxide residue was found on samples from the steel taken from the WTC. Also, an open air hydrocarbon fire burns at a maximum of about 1200 degrees, about half the temperature needed to melt steel, yet melted and rehardened steel can clearly be seen in this photograph (http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_...) It is also important to note the shape of the cut in the main beam, as this is consistant with the shape of the cut made with a shape charge. Tell me, Mister O'Niell, what cute little explination do you have for that? One final thought. I'm 17 years old and I could do this research for myself. Why could a grown man not find accurate information about this topic when his job is to report on the subject without biased?

OzzybinOswald
01 March 2008 at 13:04

Forget holograms. The videos depicting planes gliding into the towers, not even hesitating when encountering reinforced steel and concrete, are total fakes. This is now an irrefutable fact as anyone will be forced to conclude who bothers to actually examine the evidence. Hollow aluminum tubes are not solid bullets - they should crash on impact.

Which video purporting to be Flight 175 will you accept as reality? The steep divebomber that drops from far above the tower or the low, parallel-to-the-ground approach video? It's an impossible discrepancy but is supposed to depict the exact same event.

Think for yourself. Watch "September Clues". And give Newton his dues.

jimgarr
02 August 2008 at 19:39

The twin towers were over 100 stories high. For top down collapse each floor would take at least 1/2 second to hit the next floor, by gravity.

Now, clap your hands as fast as possible 100 times and measure the time it takes. It is impossible to do it in 9 or 10 secs. In other words each floor or every other, or nth floor had to be in free fall in a synchronised micro-second sequence. ie controlled demolition where all vertical 47 girders were cut by charges on every other or nth floor in an advance wave. The explosions can be seen as squibs moving ahead of the falling debris.

First of course the basement girders had to be exploded and cut as witnessed by explosive sounds and broken glass in the lobbies earlier.

This operation could only have been carried out by the most experienced demolition experts in the world. For example private companies like Deveraux and not the military.

jimgarr
02 August 2008 at 23:07

The twin towers were well over 100 stories high (over 1300ft). For top down collapse each floor would take at least 1/2 second to hit the next floor, by gravity- where acceleration, f =32 ft/sec/second according to Newton.

And of course the 47 series of vertical steel girders would have to remain. So that means every bolt and every weld (thousands) would have to shear immediately. Even then there would be resistance due to binding and friction. This would quickly slow down collapse to a standstill.

If you were to clap your hands as fast as possible 100 times and measure the time it takes, you would see it is impossible to do it in 9 or 10 secs. In other words each floor or every other floor had to be sent into free fall in advance in a synchronised micro-second sequence. For example as in controlled demolition, it can only be done electronically.

Nearly all the vertical steel girders must have been cut by exploding charges on every other floor (or every nth floor) in an advancing wave. The explosions can be seen as squibs moving ahead of the falling debris. And massive girders weighing many tons were flung and buried into adjacent buildings. Tiny fragments of human bones were found in the the Deutche bank building years later.

The whole building was converted into a pyroclastic flow that swamped lower Manhatten. The concrete was disintegrated at every floor . Random fire explosions would not be remotely sufficient enough to do this at such speed, particularly one hour or more after the supposed aircraft had struck..

First of all the massive basement girders had to be exploded to cut them , as witnessed by explosive sounds and broken glass in the hotel lobbies earlier (including the 7 sub stories). The shape of the cuts were at a 40 to 50 degree angle so the girders could slip and separate.

Sulphur deposits were found on the steel afterwards. This indicates Thermate which cuts even faster than Thermite.

Fe2O3 + Al +S melts steel due to an exothermic reaction at around 2500 degrees centigrade and still molten weeks afterwards. Stephen Jones has analysed the dust and found it partly composed of tiny Al/ steel alloy spheres.

This operation could only have been carried out by the most experienced demolition experts in the world. For example a private company and not the military.

And Mervin Bush junior brother to George had set up security before he left months before. And two weeks before the security allowed whole teams of operatives in to work on the building , drilling on every second floor with dust in offices everywhere.

As for the Pentagon only a missile moving at hyper- velocity can produce a near perfect circular hole through six walls. (The outer E or A ring through to the C Ring). Examples of objects moving at hyper velocity are meteors that produce all the circular craters on the moon, at any angle of approach greater than 5 degrees.

Missiles such as the Patriot can be launched from a truck nearby and the Pentagon building laser targeted.

The Pentagon lawn was intact . A Boeing's engines are 6 feet off the ground yet its fuselage is 12-15 feet off the ground . The round hole remaining extends several feet below the base of the building so the engines could not have cleared the lawn.

There were several lamposts knocked down yet to hit only one lampost would cause the plane to skew and crash off course.

The remnants were a few bits and pieces in the blackened ash.The only engine part was proven not to be from a Rolls Royce engine.

If the whole plane had evaporated how come they were picking up flimsy pieces of the body

(fully painted ). And how could they have identified human remains from DNA when every one would have been fossilised into fused carbon. And Rolls -Royce Titanium engines do not melt and disappear.

An air-craft's fuselage could not penetrate through 6 concrete and brick walls. The nose would collapse like paper at the first reinforced wall. Missiles penetrate by a detonation in their nose tips.

Any way those Boeing flight numbers were all cancelled that day. Ask any pilot and they will laugh good naturedly, the government might waste ordinary people but not Boeing aircrafts. The airlines would sue the government for billions.

Finally the twin towers were white elephants losing money and the asbestos had to be removed. So the Port Authority sold it to Larry Silverstein who insured them for 2 or 3 billion or so only 6 weeks beforehand. . He then claimed 5 to7 billion because he argued two terrorist attacks-and won. He now has insured the Sears -Roebuck building in Chicago, so don't go to work in that one. He ordered the demo team to 'Pull it' as captured on video, referring to WT7 which fell in six seconds from no aircraft hitting it. In fact no aircraft hit the the twin towers either according to the 'no planes theory' which makes sense. They show the videos of planes melting into the building and emerging which is impossible . The planes would break up before penetration. Reference a B25 bomber hit the Empire State in 1945 causing a big hole and 14 people killed plus a million in damage.

In fact no buildings except those 3 ever fell from any kind of aircraft strike. And there were much more serious fires in the history of skyscrapers.

jimgarr
03 August 2008 at 04:21

In reference to David Shaylor on SkyNews the interviewer was not bad enough to stonewall the ex- government spy.. Shaylor made his points so eloquently and succinctly. The establishment therefore had to recognise his real experience of MI5 covert operations. .

Shaylor has no fear of the truth because he has already paid for the right to free speech and he speaks with accuracy and intelligence. After all he does have a second class honours degree.

He is also right about the government conspiracy of 7/7/05. The charges were placed underneath the train as evidence from photographs and witnesses who saw the steel fabric had imploded inwards.

Home made bombs from gunpowder or fireworks chemicals (like Na or K chlorate , Na or K nitrate, sulfur, sugar etc )and primitive timing devices placed in rucksacks and carried about haphazardly by gross amateurs is simply too crude to work on such a scale.

The train they were supposed to be on going in to London that day had been cancelled at that hour. Three of these men were wasted at Canary Walk the same day . Ironically at least one of them had been shown around the Houses of Parliament weeks before by VIP's, so they were set up. The young man on the Tavistock Sq. bus got off too soon and the bus was re-routed on purpose..Another man who got off the bus said the police and emergency services were already there and he feared he was going to be arrested.

It was impossible for the anti-terrorist teams under Peter Power to be carrying out an emergency exercise at exactly the same time and place as the 'terrorists' .And with typical arrogant impunity he spoke to the reporters about the event as if it he was a biblical prophet.

The whole scenario had been sketched out by Power and others, including a Tory minister on Panorama years beforehand.

Support for Tony Blair and the war improved a bit after 7/7/05.

Keir36
21 February 2009 at 00:40

Well, a little late from when this story broke, I mean I mate Shayler and Machon and they are not making money out of this, they are both very bright and articulate people, they are genuinely coming forward with this information precisely because a lot of other people are scared and they rose to the challenge. Went to prison for their beliefs in David's case. They can give credence to the legitimate questions that the widows and families tried to get answers to do before they got their government whitewash version of events notably the 9/11 Commission Report. The eminent bias in the reporting is blatant though, and will only make people research the claims being made and make up their own minds, and with the facts and the consequences of the new Sept 11th - since Allendes killing (Kissinger/CIA), the reality of the NWO (see the dozens of publications announcing the new world bank and global governance) is starting to make a lot of people seeing the brave for what they really are and is starting to call them whacko conspiracy nutjobs less and less