See other Editorial Articles
Title: Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 4, 2007
Author: Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer .
Post Date: 2007-04-04 20:57:00 by tom007
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1759
Comments: 96
Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth 9/11 Blogger | April 2, 2007 Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 truth. The latest is Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer . Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. • Statement to this website 3/25/07: "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. The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] 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, 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." 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. We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: Fish Breath (#20)
Shalom Fish Breath. Are you on a rampage?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
You mean Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502? You know, the one titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? I think it says all it needs to say. And, of course, you can't show us anything in the Constitution or US law defining what it should say.
The one you wouldn't quote? The one where you only quoted the recitals as these served you better than the actual bill? LOL!!
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
A few folks have expressed an OPINION. But that's about it. NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take. And it seems that Congress had a different OPINION than you back in 2002. At least according to the LAW they passed authorizing the use of military force in Iraq to deal with a bunch of WHEREASes.
you asked me what form a bill should take. i answered you and called you on your silly bullshit. you are now trying to change the subject. 12 year olds do this a lot.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
That is true. and TREASONOUS QUEERS do also.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
because ..... as you know .... it is a silly red herring to get the discussion away from the fact that the war resolution doesn't say what you need it to say. lol!!!!!
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I did better than that. I provided a link to it. So folks could read all the WHEREASes that you folks just ignored. And see that Congress gave it's APPROVAL of the use of force against Iraq for all those WHEREAS reasons.
So Bush's Declaration of War is not valid because you and Jeff Gannon smeared the paper it was written on with your AIDS infected semen?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
Yes, you definitely are a typical 4um poster.
No you didn't liar. You know where it is, post the link yourself if you think it says something different. Do you know how desperate you look pushing this goofy red herring? Duhhhhh guess I got nuttin else, so where in the contstitution does it say what form a war resolution should take huh?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Are you still a Jew?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Red Herring by a desperate Jewish guy shilling for Israels war.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Regarding your assertion that Jefferson sent the marines to fight the pirates without a formal 'declaration of war'. this is technically true. But the pirates that were targeted were not a nation. and the US Marines were established by an act of Congress & funded in 1790's with the specific understanding that they would be used to fight these pirates. So I think you're a little bit ridiculous. The constitution says we don't go to war unless Congress declares war. and for you to suggest that Jefferson was a TREASONOUS QUEER! like you is obnoxious. Washington wasn't a TREASONOUS QUEER! either. and the fighting against the pirates began in 1790's when Washington was president. It only continued under next 2 presidents which included Jefferson (3'rd president).
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
because i am not going to get sucked into your silly games fish breath. if what you said was different from what we implied you would have the link up here in a second --- and the whole world knows that.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
You were a little hard on the BeAGayJooLoser last night, Ward.
try to rise above your natural shiftiness and function like an adult. i am doing you a favor here an pointing out why you are such a failure everywhere you go.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
You seem to think that if you keep doing the same thing over and over you will get a different result. But what got you branded a kook on FR and LP has the same effect here. Do you know how little respect those people have for you? They talk about you to us. How do you think we know you are a guy and that you are Jewish?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 Public Law 107–243 107th Congress Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’; Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40); and Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’. SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to— (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.— (1) SPECIFICSTATUTORYAUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHERREQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338). (b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) RULEOFCONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Approved October 16, 2002.
Speaking of red herrings. ROTFLOL! By the way, you know NOTHING about me. You only make yourself look more and more foolish every time you assert I'm jewish .
But you have already admitted that you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! on a previous thread.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Great, we both agree your silly question about what form a war resolution had to take was a red herring. You are trying to change the subject in your post above and this is your way of admitting that the other person has a point. I know that you are both Jewish and male. People really have confirmed that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
By the way, you know NOTHING about me. minerva is right. you are trying to change the subject here. she pointed out that your silly argument about the form of the war resolution was a red herring. you didn't address this. instead, you tried to change the subject. i agree with her that this is your way of admitting that the other person has made a point that you cannot answer.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Name the people. I bet not one of them has actually met me, knows which city I live in, knows what I do for a living, knows my name, knows my religious affiliation, or much else about me. You are only deluding yourself.
You and minerva would be likely to agree. ROTFLOL!
By the way, you know NOTHING about me. Fish Breath, pay attention and try to stay on subject. I said your arguement about the form of the war resolution was a stupid red herring. In response, you tried to change the subject and you tried to interject personal insults. This tells me two things. Your stupid argument about the form of the war resolution was a red herring and you are caught red handed and have no good response.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Your stupid argument about the form of the war resolution was a red herring that you deliberately tossed out. You got caught red handed and are now trying to change the subject as you have not real response.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
No. We protect our source. You are Male and you are Jewish. By the way, your stupid argument about the form of the war resolution was a red herring you deliberately tossed out. You are now trying to change the subject to escape getting called on it.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
What personal insult would that be?
The one on the thread above. You are still trying to change the subject. You are doing this because your stupid argument about the form the war resolution must take was pointed out to be a deliberate red herring. You have no answer for this.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
What personal insult would that be? try to stay on point. only little kids use these sorts of tactics. your using them has made you the laughing stock on three internet sites at least. your silly argument about he war resolution was pointed out to be a dishonest diversion. since then, you have done nothing but try to change the subject.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Tel Aviv and invading American political internet forums?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
the fr people will spill the beans if you go over and ask them.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I see you're lying again. You don't give up do you?
#27. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#21)
It's silly that you havfe to resort to this over the top spin becuase you know that 114 doesn't say what you need it to say.
#28. To: BeAChooser (#27)
#29. To: Dakmar, ALL (#24)
"Provide us with a statement in the Constitution or US law that defines the form a Declaration of War must take."
Once again, you're an idiot.
This has been explained to you many times,
#30. To: BeAChooser (#27)
You mean Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502? You know, the one titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"? I think it says all it needs to say. And, of course, you can't show us anything in the Constitution or US law defining what it should say.
#31. To: Morgana le Fay (#30)
12 year olds do this a lot.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
#33. To: Minerva, ALL (#28)
The one you wouldn't quote?
#34. To: BeAChooser (#29)
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
#35. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#30)
12 year olds do this a lot.
#36. To: Dakmar, ALL (#34)
So Bush's Declaration of War is not valid because you and Jeff Gannon smeared the paper it was written on with your AIDS infected semen?
#37. To: BeAChooser (#33)
I did better than that.
#38. To: BeAChooser (#36)
#39. To: BeAChooser (#29)
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
#40. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#32)
#41. To: BeAChooser (#35)
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
#42. To: Dakmar (#38)
#43. To: BeAChooser (#35)
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
#44. To: BeAChooser (#35)
#45. To: Minerva, ALL (#37)
post the link yourself if you think it says something different.
#46. To: Minerva, ALL (#39)
Red Herring by a desperate Jewish guy shilling for Israels war.
#47. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#46)
#48. To: BeAChooser (#46)
(Edited)
#49. To: BeAChooser (#46)
Speaking of red herrings. ROTFLOL!
#50. To: Minerva, ALL (#48)
I know that you are both Jewish and male. People really have confirmed that.
#51. To: Morgana le Fay, Minerva, ALL (#49)
minerva is right.
#52. To: BeAChooser (#46)
Speaking of red herrings. ROTFLOL!
#53. To: BeAChooser (#51)
You and minerva would be likely to agree. ROTFLOL!
#54. To: BeAChooser (#50)
(Edited)
Name the people.
#55. To: Minerva, ALL (#52)
you tried to interject personal insults.
#56. To: BeAChooser (#55)
What personal insult would that be?
#57. To: BeAChooser (#55)
you tried to interject personal insults.
#58. To: BeAChooser (#50)
knows which city I live in, knows what I do for a living,
#59. To: wbales (#58)
#60. To: BeAChooser (#16)
Odd. Not one demolition expert in the world seems to believe that.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#61. To: BeAChooser (#16)
Question, BAC. Perhaps you've addressed this elsewhere, but what is your take on the BBC clip in which they reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened. This is the one where they report it's collapsed when showing an on site reporter with WTC7 still standing in the background. What plausible explanation do you suggest for what appears to be the BBC having advance knowledge of the building's collapse? TIA.
#62. To: Critter, ALL (#60)
By all means, critter ... post the name and a quote by a demolition expert who believes the collapse of WTC 7 shows the demolitions were pre-planned. Because as far as I know the only demolition expert that has said WTC7 was a demolition (that would be Mr Jowenko) also said he thought the demolition was carried out on the spur of the moment by Silverstein in order to avoid having to repair WTC7 after it was damaged when the towers (which he said were NOT controlled demolitions) collapsed. Go ahead, critter ... give us a name and a specific quote. Bet you can't.
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.
"Odd. Not one demolition expert in the world seems to believe that."
I see you're lying again.
#63. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#61)
I'll go with what the BBC said. Because bottom line, there isn't a demolition expert in the world who thinks WTC7 was a demolition planned before 9/11. And there is only ONE who thinks it was a demolition planned AFTER the planes hit and collapsed the towers. And he reached that conclusion after seeing carefully selected video provided by a conspiracist who failed to tell him that the building collapsed on 9/11, that it was on fire for about 7 hours before the collapse and that it was observed to be leaning long before the collapse. The fact is that multiple firemen said they saw WTC7 leaning long before it collapsed. And that is a fact you folks simply ignore.
what is your take on the BBC clip in which they reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened.
#64. To: BeAChooser (#63)
The building came straight down...a "leaning buildings" still has atleast 50% structural integrity.
saw WTC7 leaning long before it collapsed.
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#65. To: BeAChooser (#16)
What would you do if it became official, with hard proof that 911 was not carried out by Arabs in caves, but was done as these people say? Would you still deny it in the face or hard truth? I realize I most likely won't get a concrete answer from you on this, but I'd like to know.
Odd. Not one demolition expert in the world seems to believe that.
#66. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#17)
People on DU believe the govt's official version?! I would have guessed otherwise.
are you an operative from DU?
.
.
.
Comments (67 - 96) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest