The following piece, which first appeared in Notes From the Borderland issue 7 2006 (p.13-17) was our first attempt to explore what was then Machon & Shayler's new sphere of operation/infiltration, the wacky world of the 9/11 & 7/7 cults. Whatever else their intervention in this field signifies, it was/is emphatically not a search for truth. Nothing new from spooks there then. Needless to say, not one argument below has ever been answered/refuted. No surprise there either. Enjoy

by Paul Stott and Heidi Svenson (copyright NFB 2006)

"Unlike some other former intelligence officers, he is not prone to confirming or encouraging wild conspiracy theories. And he understands the importance of not releasing genuine security and state secrets. He never disclosed, not even privately, names of MI5 agents or ongoing sensitive operations". Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding praise David Shayler in the preface to their 1999 book 'Defending the Realm-MI5 and the Shayler Affair" [1].

Previous issues of NFB have analysed the on-going trajectory of former MI5 officers David Shayler and Annie Machon. In particular, we raised concerns at the unquestioning welcome given to them by many on the fast dwindling British Left, and queried the repeated ducking and diving by both Shayler and Machon when anyone questions either their credentials or conduct [2].

Three significant events have occurred since NFB 6:
First--May 2005 saw the publication of 'Spies, Lies & Whistleblowers--MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair' by Annie Machon [3]. This book is the most detailed statement to date by either Shayler or Machon.
Second--June 21st 2005 saw David Shayler belatedly accept the gauntlet thrown down by NFB editor Dr Larry O'Hara, and debate with him at London's Conway Hall [4].
Third--and our main focus in this article--Shayler and Machon have shifted away from the British left and anti-war movements, to instead become leading figures among the writers and activists who reject the American and British government view of exactly what happened in New York on September 11 2001.

Robin Ramsay outlined in Lobster magazine how a whole industry has rapidly developed out of the 9/11 ashes. Putting "9/11" and "conspiracy" into Google gets 6 million hits [5]. Amongst the myriad books, DVDs, web-sites and conferences are a range of opinions too numerous to list here. As the American government continues to use what happened on 9/11 to justify an expansionist foreign policy, interest in 9/11 is unlikely to fade in the near future.


At the time of the attack on the Twin Towers, David Shayler had been out of MI5 for five years, and was attempting to make a living as writer and communicator, usually on matters pertaining to the security services. As Hollingsworth and Fielding outlined in their 1999 book, Shayler's primary critique of MI5 was that it was too bureaucratic, old fashioned and inefficient for the task of defending the United Kingdom. This was a theme Shayler continued in late September 2001, when he warned Sunday Express readers that future 9/11s could only be avoided if the security services were updated. Shayler is quoted as saying "Our lives will continue to be put at risk by inefficient security could be the difference between 5000 dead and people behind bars" [6]. Showing he believed 9/11 was a case of secret state incompetence, not malevolence.

Mail on Sunday readers had earlier been treated, similarly, to Shayler's view that the security services inability to work together, plus elitist recruiting policies, ensured future terrorist attacks could not be prevented [7].

Despite a high media profile for David Shayler in both 2001 and 2002 (when he was briefly jailed for breaching the Official Secrets Act by passing stolen MI5 documents to the Mail on Sunday) and increasing interest in Annie Machon from the British media, they expressed no public concern or doubts about the official narrative of the September 11th attacks.

In 2003 long term Shayler collaborators Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding rewrote their 1999 book, giving it the new title of 'Defending the Realm: Inside MI5 and the War on Terrorism' [8]. This continued Shayler's theme of national security being undermined by by a security service that had failed to adapt to the post-cold war world. Somewhat shamelessly they criticise the fact that in the UK "Islamist radicals were able to organise and operate for years with impunity" [9], a failing neither they nor David Shayler appeared concerned about in the first edition.

Discussing security matters in 2003, Shayler maintained his standard line, consistent with his submission to the Cabinet Office review of the security services, arguing MI5 is "too wedded to the past and the bureaucracy is still too rigid and cumbersome" [10]. In the books's pictures section, a shot of the twin towers had the following caption: "the devastating attack on the twin towers of the WTC is widely regarded as a failure of intelligence".

A new chapter in the 2003 book, looking at how MI5 failed to get to grips with Al Qaeda, is credited to Nick Fielding, and appears to have been written with little, if any, significant input from either Shayler or Machon.

In 2003, therefore, David Shayler appears to have consistently taken the view that the American and British security services needed to modernise to better fight Islamic terrorists, who wished to perpetrate devastating terrorist attacks against the West. This view is also compatible with that of David Shayler's old MI5 supervisor and girlfriend, Annie Machon, in a book he was quite happy to tell people in conversation on 21/6/05 he had written, 'Spies Lies & Whistleblowers'. This 2005 book praises FBI whistleblower, Coleen Rowley, saying after her actions the "US has reorganised its agencies to ensure that in future intelligence is properly shared and exploited" [11]. The inference of this comment is clear--9/11 happened because intelligence wasn't properly shared or exploited, but this had now (by 2005) been resolved, with the US intelligence agencies constructively moving in the right direction. Again, no hint of malevolent pre-planning here. She further states that Al Qaeda taking over Libya in 1996 would have got them "the ability to launch many more attacks like 11 September"--clearly indicating Machon still blamed Al Qaeda for 9/11 in early 2005 [12].


The official government version is the USA was attacked by Al Qaeda terrorists. Such an attack could not have been envisaged or prevented. The original Shayler/Machon line, to the extent it deviates at all from the that, loosely corresponds to the first of the three main 9/11 alternative hypotheses.

1) Incompetence--that the US security services were poor at their job, allowing a group of better motivated, able terrorists to attack America. This could perhaps be seen as an articulation of the cock up, rather than conspiracy, theory of history.

2) LIHOP--Letting it happen on purpose. Put simply, the authorities were aware of an imminent attack on America, but 9/11 was allowed to happen as it would enable the US neo-Conservatives to better meet their political goals.

3) MIHOP--Making it happen on purpose. This view centres on the belief that the Americans either co-ordinated or to some degree directed the 9/11 attacks, to ensure that they happened. This would then pave the way for the same ourcome as above--a clear political field for the neo-Cons and the US military [13].

In both the US and UK, the political left has tended to shy away from openly embracing any of the three positions above, preferring instead to concentrate on politically exposing the consequences of 9/11--the American invasion of Afghanistan, and later, the US led invasion of Iraq. No doubt there will be further opposition to any future moves on Iran.


In Britain both David Shayler and Annie Machon joined the 'Stop the War Coalition'. who eventually organised (to absolutely no effect) the biggest political demonstration in British history, when an estimated 1.5 million people marched in London on 15 February 2003 to oppose any invasion of Iraq. In their history of the Stop the War Coalition, Andrew Murray and Lindsay German make clear the organisation's view of 9/11 "Flying hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre was an atrocity. The Stop the War Coalition condemned it...There is no room for pointless conspiracy theories--9/11 was not carried out by the US government or by Israel's Mossad" [14].

Another writer involved with this book was none other than David Shayler, who commented on what he saw as "the disproportionate response to 9/11" leading to a war between two world leaders "motivated by religious hatred" (presumably he means Bush and Bin Laden). Use of the word 'disproportionate' is interesting here, implying, again, that the attacks were carried out by some force external to the US state, and certainly not under their control. Shayler was in no doubt that a political solution was available to those concerned about what was happening in the world. "The Stop the War Coalition is the only organisation that is dedicated to changing the destructive policies of the Bush-Blair axis. It is a broad-based non-aligned movement with mass support". Shayler warns us to defend human life and democracy "we can only do that by banding together against the 'forces of darkness' under the aegis of the Stop the War Coalition" [15]. Given the times Shayler claims to have been misquoted by the press, NFB stresses these words have come from Shayler's own pen.


During 2005 both David Shayler and Annie Machon switched emphasis away from anti-war activities per se towards far more of a concentration on 9/11. They dramatically abandoned their previous viewpoints on 9/11, and in a few short months became leading figures in the movement condemning official positions on the terror attacks. This culminated in Machon being appointed as Secretary of the 9/11 Truth Campaign (Britain and Ireland) on 18 February 2006. What happened, and why?

As can be seen above, at the time of the March 2005 publication of 'Stop the War' Shayler was almost misty-eyed in his devotion to the STWC. It was, indeed, "the only organisation defending human life and democracy". Annie Machon, in her May 2005 book comments that "Anyone with any knowledge of counter-terrorism knew the risks of invading Iraq. The Joint Intelligence Committee even warned Blair that it could lead to an increase in terrorist activity. David and I have been active in the Stop the War Coalition for precisely these reasons" [16]. During the Conway Hall debate 21 June 2005, David Shayler mentioned the STWC, as victims of state surveillance. He claimed that "on one occasion I was on the phone to Stop the War, and I clicked the line shut, opened it again, and my conversation was being played back. This indicated to me MI5 were interested in Stop the War Coalition" [17]. Interestingly, several questions from the floor speculated as to the honesty of the relationship between the Socialist Workers Party (one of the main groups in STWC) and British Muslim organisations. This to a backdrop of Muslim communities under intense surveillance from the security services. Annie Machon, as an MI5 officer formerly responsible for running agents in the SWP, is arguably uniquely placed to answer questions on this.

During Summer 2005, with the book containing their original views hot off the press, David Shayler and Annie Machon appear to have dramatically rethought their views on STWC, and campaigning generally. Come the October 25th Anarchist Bookfair, Shayler talked about the STWC in remarkable terms. Knowing that if he approached the Bookfair organisers wishing to speak at the event he would almost certainly be turned down (for some reason Anarchists tend to take a less tolerant view of unrepentant spooks than other leftists) Shayler and Machon instead spoke (unannounced) at a meeting under the auspices of the 911 Truth Campaign. Put under pressure by NFB collective members to name agents on the left, Shayler condemned agents provocateur on the left, saying they were clearly operating at big political events. This is what he had to say about the STWC--quoted in full to avoid any charge of misrepresentation

"about Stop the War, I really do wonder. I have worked with Stop the War but I find that sometimes their attitude seems to...the only way to explain it is they have somehow been penetrated. They had 2 million people on the streets in 2003 and whewre's that gone? The last demonstration I went on about a month ago was really quite a damp squib basically. They don't seem to want to take forward what they have and seem to have squandered an opportunity. And I don't think that is down to incompetence, I really don't" [18].

However, he failed to explain how either his or Machon's experience could be used to deal with this alleged penetration, instead calling upon people to use their own intelligence to root out infiltrators. Yet in a hierarchical organisation such as STWC it is highly likely that such infiltrators are in senior positions. Otherwise they would have no input into the policies that contributed to the alleged "squandered opportunities" Shayler speaks of.

When pressed as to who such assets might be, Shayler completely changed the subject to a spurious call for unity between activists against Tony Blair [19]. Does this mean he wants us to unite with the very infiltrators he condemns? STWC activists might well think Shayler and Machon's support is something they could do without--unless it be to enlighten all of us as to who these state infiltrators are, other than the dynamic duo themselves.

Curiously Annie Machon has continued to circulate STWC newsletters on the British 9/11 Truth campaign web-site Does she too believe STWC is penetrated? In which case, she is inviting people to join a thoroughly compromised organisation. Have Machon or Shayler done anything to save STWC from such damaging penetration: or to root out and expose infiltrators, especially given only a year ago Shayler described STWC as the only option for protecting democracy and human life? No they have not.

Given there is no evidence Shayler/Machon have done anything to help the security of the STWC here, we are left with two possibilities--either Shayler doesn't believe his own comments on STWC and infiltration, or he does, but can't be bothered to do anything about it. Either way, STWC members should have plenty of questions for him next time he speaks in public. As too, Annie Machon. If STWC is infiltrated at a leadership level, there is a high probability at least one 'infiltrator' might well be a long-term MI5 asset inside the politically dominant SWP--something (and probably somebody) her previous MI5 job puts her in a position to know all about.


On 4/6/05 Shayler spoke at a high profile 9/11 Conference at Manchester Town Hall, billed merely as an "ex-MI5 officer". In the months since he and Machon have been intimately involved with the 9/11 'Truth' movement, and Shayler has vigorously pushed their new line--that the 9/11 attacks happened because the Americans made them happen.

On 20/6/05 Shayler was interviewed by Alex Jones of the American web-site Shayler had no hesitation when discussing 9/11 in stating that the attacks occurred not because of incompetence, but because "they made it happen". As he put it "when I first started to follow 9/11 in the papers, I was very worried by certain reports emerging". Note carefully the phrase "first started"--indicating quite clearly these worries were early and contemporary. Specifically, these worries included the fact that "all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. They never wanted anybody to look at that metal, because they were not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show it was Al Qaeda". He added that "you almost have a coup d'etat" [20]. Given that the same people remained in power after 9/11 as before, this is an extremely curious supposition. Not quite as bizarre however as Shayler's suggestion in the same interview that a subsequent plane crash in the Queens area of New York--a month after 9/11--was instigated to silence firemen who were beginning to doubt the official version of events that day.

Having got his gander up, there was now little stopping Shayler. Next stop was an interview with Revelation Tapes, run by Dave Starbuck of Walsall [21]. Here Shayler is in interesting company. Mr Starbuck's catalogue (which is advertised amongst other places, in England First's---formerly the International Third Position--Final Conflict magazine) contains titles questioning the guilt of Ian Huntley with regards to the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, and a tape by National Front founder, the late AK Chesterton, on "international finance". Clearly Shayler is taking the 9/11 'truth' message into into some pretty dark corners. In the interview Shayler not only repeats his supposition 9/11 was an "inside job" but sets a hare running about the 7/7 London bombings, where he again doubts the official version. When Dave Starbuck asserts that the bombing "stinks" and that proof of this is the fact that only one bus was diverted in London that day, which he claims then blew up at the site of the Balfour declaration, Shayler joins in Starbuck's incredulous laughter. Given the tendency of some anti-semites to blame any Islamic bombing on Mossad, and some of the more lurid anti-semitic claims about 9/11, at NFB we choose not to join in messrs Shayler and Starbuck's frivolity. Even if the latter sounds like John Shuttleworth on acid (or meths).

Come 2005's October Anarchist Bookfair, Shayler and Machon appeared to have reached such a position of authority within the 9/11 'Truth movement' that a coterie of supporters hung unquestioningly on their every word. Earlier conflicting views from the pair (indeed views expressed only a few months earlier) were erased from history.


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 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.


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?


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.


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 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.


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.



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
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 (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" ( On the reluctance of the No2ID card campaign to get into bed with Ms Machon and co. see 28 March 2006
30) ibid.
31) see thread 'Rachael from N. London on Alex Cox's Forum' started 19/1/06 ( 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

Contact Address

BM Box 4769
United Kingdom

Phone: +44 7775 964367


About NFB Magazine

Welcome to Britain's premier parapolitical investigative magazine Notes from the Borderland (NFB). We have been producing the magazine since 1997 but some published material before then.

Our political perspective is Left/Green, but we welcome truth-tellers, whatever their affiliation. Research interests include the secret state (MI5/MI6/Special Branch, now SO15) & their assets, including those in the media. We are resolutely anti-fascist, and to that end investigate the far right and state infiltration of various milieus. In a shallow age where many TV programmes and print/internet stories are spoon-fed to servile journalists/bloggers by shadowy interests, NFB stands out as genuine investigative research. 

Take a chance--you won't be disappointed...

To republish anything on this site contact us first  for permission - we will usually grant it for non-profit organisations, other requests will be looked at on a case by case basis.   "Quotation is fine, plagiarism isn't" (Agent Q RIP).