Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

[rottweiler]

Are you telling me Army Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine does not exist?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...NpSYrALn0ImRAQ

Originally Posted by Lawdog

If any of them claim, as farmer giles does, that "no planes were hijacked" on 9-11, then the answer is YES, HELL YES, and HELL F***ING YES, nutballs every one.

Don't be sure that some (or even any) of those 25 supposed officers exist. The Internet is full of all kinds of bulls**t rumors.

[Shoonra]

No doubt about it, these 25 retired high-ranking military officers have their disagreements with the official reports of Sept 11th. And I suspect disagreements with the official accounts could be found in many - perhaps hundreds - more former and current military officers. No surprise there at all.

But these 25 do not necessarily all find fault with the same issues in the official accounts -- some quibble about the handling of hijacking reports, some about the way the jets were destroyed or what should have remained of them, and so forth. Only a very few seem willing to deny that jetliners crashed into the WTC, or that the towers fell down as a result of the jet crashes, while some others are willing to believe that the jetliners crashed but are suggesting that our govt let them crash, and some are willing to accept that the jetliners crashed because they were flown by suicide hijackers as reported but quibble whether Al-qaeda should be blamed. And so many more combinations and permutations of what could and couldn't have happened.

For the most part, the "debunkers" of the conspiracy theorists have confined themselves to the questions of whether planes were flown into the WTC towers and the WTC towers collapsed as described. The issues of who was behind it and who may have allowed to happen are not within their realm of argument - although frequently within the issues raised by these 25 military officers.

The point I an trying to make is that, despite the commonality of having doubts and disagreements with the official reports, not all these 25 officers actually collide with the people (such as the editors of Popular Mechanics) who have defended the physical facts of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by gldskr

C'mon Tigron, you can't be serious?

gldskr

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

I thought he was being sarcastic at first, but then read the rest of his post

Tigron, we aren't trying to belittle you, it's just that you are misinformed in regards to this particular issue of Al Queda

To answer both of you... I said what I said because US soldiers are fighting such a group, at least that's the way it seems. Though, Weishaupt1776, I need to follow up on the media you posted earlier in this thread, e.g. the bbc documentary. Thank you for bringing such information to my attention.

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Not quite he isn't. The very term was coined by the US Gov. Remember that Osama himself was a US Gov asset.

But that's not to say that he remained loyal to the US Gov.

[rottweiler]

The editor of the Popular Mechanics article, Ben Chertoff is the cousin of the fake Jew Director of Homeland Security.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No doubt about it, these 25 retired high-ranking military officers have their disagreements with the official reports of Sept 11th. And I suspect disagreements with the official accounts could be found in many - perhaps hundreds - more former and current military officers. No surprise there at all.

But these 25 do not necessarily all find fault with the same issues in the official accounts -- some quibble about the handling of hijacking reports, some about the way the jets were destroyed or what should have remained of them, and so forth. Only a very few seem willing to deny that jetliners crashed into the WTC, or that the towers fell down as a result of the jet crashes, while some others are willing to believe that the jetliners crashed but are suggesting that our govt let them crash, and some are willing to accept that the jetliners crashed because they were flown by suicide hijackers as reported but quibble whether Al-qaeda should be blamed. And so many more combinations and permutations of what could and couldn't have happened.

For the most part, the "debunkers" of the conspiracy theorists have confined themselves to the questions of whether planes were flown into the WTC towers and the WTC towers collapsed as described. The issues of who was behind it and who may have allowed to happen are not within their realm of argument - although frequently within the issues raised by these 25 military officers.

The point I an trying to make is that, despite the commonality of having doubts and disagreements with the official reports, not all these 25 officers actually collide with the people (such as the editors of Popular Mechanics) who have defended the physical facts of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

US soldiers are fighting such a group, at least that's the way it seems.

It seems to me that an age-old tactic is being used to spur the troops and the population forward- sort of like the agenda does overall

(that's why it's called "progressive")

In the 2nd world war masses of half-savage Red Army soldiers were driven forward by rear units (NKVD) that sprayed them with machine gun fire if the former dared retreat.

In a more modern culture agents create events that provoke and motivate military action by for example u.s. forces. Want to move the army to a given area? Arrange for an attack that will draw forward and permanently deploy the required units. This is how the various new pipelines and other strategic areas are being established.

Kosovo is a recent example: underneath it all this region is an important waystation for the emerging world power, has mineral wealth etc.

So Alqueada seems to echo the Agenda at every turn. Al queada is the name for the very advanced scout elements that create a tripwire to unleash the main force.

Actually, "alquaeda" may translate to "the agenda"

[Lawdog]

The fact that one....one, mind you, of the literally DOZENS of scientists and engineers consulted for the book "Debunking 9-11 Myths" (published by the editors of Popular Mechanics) happens to be a distant cousin of Michael Chertoff is not a refutation of that book to any sane, rational person.

But then, you're not a sane, rational person, are you?

P.S. It's a very well-written book.

[Lawdog]

Popular Mechanics had this to say about the Chertoff connection:

Soon after the Popular Mechanics report appeared, conspiracy buffs began parsing the names of the various researchers who contributed to the article, noting the odd coincidence that Benjamin Chertoff, then the head of the magazine’s research Department, has the same last name as the then newly appointed head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. In a rare instance of reportorial initiative (most 9/11 “Internet researchers” rarely venture beyond Google), Christopher Bollyn phoned Ben’s mother, who volunteered that, yes, she thinks Michael Chertoff might be a distant cousin. “Chertoff’s Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece,” read the headline on Bollyn’s next American Free Press story. “This is exactly the kind of ‘journalism’ one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” he concluded. Later, a headline was added to his article: “Ben Chertoff: Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation Tool.”

As often happens in the world of conspiracy theories, a grain of truth—it’s possible that Ben and Michael Chertoff are distantly related—was built into a towering dune. In fact, Ben and Michael Chertoff have never spoken. And no one at Popular Mechanics had any contact with Michael Chertoff’s office while preparing the article. Moreover, Ben was one of many researchers on the story, not the author. (Then, of course, there’s the question of why Ben—and his colleagues—would be eager to get involved with one of the greatest crimes in history.) But in the world of 9/11 conspiracy theories, coincidence is proof of collaboration.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...07.html?page=3

Sorry to burst your bubble, dude.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

To answer both of you... I said what I said because US soldiers are fighting such a group, at least that's the way it seems.

Well this is what the officials want you to think. This war is based upon many lies: We were suppose to be going to Iraq to free them from Saddam (not Al Queda). Remember, the U.S. Helped put Saddam into office.

Originally Posted by wikipedia.org

Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963. [15] [16]

Then we were certain that Saddam had WMDs, although this was false.

Originally Posted by wikipedia.org

Bush announced that he would possibly take action to topple the Iraqi government, because of the 'threat' of its "weapons of mass destruction." Bush claimed, "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade."

More lies:

Originally Posted by wikipedia.org

The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.
On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.

“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” --George W. Bush (2006)

Originally Posted by Tigron-X

Though, Weishaupt1776, I need to follow up on the media you posted earlier in this thread, e.g. the bbc documentary. Thank you for bringing such information to my attention.

But that's not to say that he remained loyal to the US Gov.

The point is that the 9-11 Commission Report is a fraud. Moreover, based upon the evidence, Al-Qaeda (whatever they are) could not have pull off a 9-11 style attack without help within the government itself.

Originally Posted by Col. Ronald D. Ray

In an interview on the Alex Jones Show on June 30, 2006 19, Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as “the dog that doesn’t hunt”, meaning it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones’ question, “Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?” Col. Ray replied, “I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that's accurate. That's true.”

“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back,” wrote Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), in a statement to this author.

A retired fighter pilot, Col. Razer served as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program and flew combat missions over Iraq. He continued, “The ‘collapse’ of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s
collapse before it happened, as BBC News did,20 unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states ‘they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.’ 21

“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it,” he concluded.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Artic...enge%20911.pdf

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it,”

Yeah, right. It's a little late for that. The game is up. As HG WELLS put it: "no way out but through it".

Its just not possible to have a cake and eat it too.

[rottweiler]

Popular Mechanics is to engineering what the Enquirer is to journalism. It is a Hearst publication and Hearst is the father of yellow journalism. Nothing has changed in 100 years, fake jews like the Chertoff's lie all day long with out batting an eye.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Popular Mechanics had this to say about the Chertoff connection:



http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...07.html?page=3

Sorry to burst your bubble, dude.