4um: Air Force Fighter Pilot and Instructor Comes Out for 9/11 Truth

[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 2486
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!" Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 84.

#16. To: tom007, ALL (#0)

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.

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."

Is it necessary to alter quotes to fabricate a case against the US government? Apparently so ...

BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-04 22:36:35 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

#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.

Neil McIver posted on 2007-04-05 2:09:31 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

#63. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#61)

what is your take on the BBC clip in which they reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes before it happened.

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.

BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-05 13:16:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

#83. To: BeAChooser (#63)

I'll go with what the BBC said.

Which appears to be this:

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK.

BBC World logoUntil now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Which is basically, "we're not part of any conspiracy, the report was a mistake that by sheer chance came to pass, and, oh by the way we lost some of the tape archives to the greatest event in the last 50 years".

I wasn't asking about demolitions, and I certainly am not accusing the BBC of being in on any conspiracy. They simply were told by someone that the building had collapsed right before it did.

And you say the building was leaning. Sounds like you would suggest the building was poorly designed, as no fire should bring it down like that.

The BBC broadcast is clearly something deserving of investigation, but the 911 commission didn't even investigate the collapse of WTC7, much less the reporting of it.

Neil McIver posted on 2007-04-06 0:46:58 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

#84. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#83)

by the way we lost some of the tape archives to the greatest event in the last 50 years".

Happens all the time, Neil. I hear tell they've even lost the original tapes of the moon landing.

And you say the building was leaning.

No, I'm saying that. Firemen at the scene said that. Even measured the leaning.

as no fire should bring it down like that.

And you base this on your structural engineering and fire engineering expertise?

BeAChooser posted on 2007-04-06 1:03:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

Replies to Comment # 84.

#85. To: BeAChooser (#84)

And you say the building was leaning.

No, I'm saying that. Firemen at the scene said that. Even measured the leaning.

Okay, let me get this straight. You don't know if it was leaning or not. But you do know that there was no foul play in it's collapse. Your selectiveness in what you know and don't know is quite peculiar.

And you base this on your structural engineering and fire engineering expertise?

In the case of WTC7, I most certainly do.

Neil McIver posted on 2007-04-06 01:07:57 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

#92. To: BeAChooser (#84) (Edited)

Happens all the time, Neil. I hear tell they've even lost the original tapes of the moon landing.

That's incredible bullshit Chosen...think of one incident outside the BBC case in which a news agency "lost" an archived news file. Wouldn't some one be fired or investigated for theft? BTW, since when was NASA a news agency?

We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped."

Priceless, the Jew that saves the day...

Eoghan posted on 2007-04-06 05:43:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply

End Trace Mode for Comment # 84.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]