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: 2483
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 (1-55) not displayed.
.
.
.
#56. To: BeAChooser (#55)
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?
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?
#67. To: Morgana le Fay (#17)
you seem to be trying to convince the world that all republicans are rude bullshitters like yourself. I get now what you're saying.
are you an operative from DU?
#68. To: Minerva, BeAChooser, All (#48)
How can anyone know that for sure? He never says anything personal, never has, he could in fact be a woman for all we know. It's difficult to post for so many years without slipping something about yourself, but BAC has managed to do just that, and remains quite the mystery poster as a result.
I know that you are both Jewish and male. People really have confirmed that.
#69. To: BeAChooser (#50)
I suspect you would consider yourself an atheist, maybe an agnostic, but maybe not.
#70. To: Eoghan, ALL (#64)
But why did it start to lean well before it came down? Tell us how a demolition would cause that to happen.
a "leaning buildings" still has atleast 50% structural integrity.
#71. To: wbales (#5)
The Army has been deploying soldiers on crutches and canes to Fort Irwin for Iraq desert training.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#72. To: Diana, ALL (#65)
ROTFLOL! What if ... what if ... what if. Diana, a better question is why you can't face the HARD TRUTH that ... bombs didn't bring down the WTC towers. ... that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world thinks the WTC towers collapsed due to demolition. ... that NOT ONE thinks WTC7 was a pre-planned demolition. ... that only ONE thinks WTC7 was a demolition at all (and he based that on very limited info). ... that only two structural engineers say bombs brought down the WTC towers (and they based this on very limited info). ... that Silverstein did NOT say what the thread's article claims he said. ... that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet in diameter. ... and that the leaders of the *truth* movement have stated lie after lie to make their case. I'm not the one in denial here, Diana.
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?
#73. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#72)
I know that. You admitted previously that you are a TREASONOUS QUEER! now you need a 12-step program.
I'm not the one in denial
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#74. To: BeAChooser (#70) (Edited)
It didn't lean...the report is bogus, like the BBC/CNN reporting (reading scripts from unrevealed sources). Unless you're willing to argue that the other side of melted/bent in order to the building to fall straight down. See, you can't have it both ways.
But why did it start to lean well before it came down?
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#75. To: Eoghan (#74)
So now the new story is "WTC 7 was leaning before it collapsed". Really? How very interesting. So why have there been no photos or video showing WTC 7 leaning? Has it taken this long to doctor up a video to make it look as if it was leaning? The apologists just don't get it: WE DON'T BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT ANY LONGER.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#76. To: Elliott Jackalope (#75)
Firefighter predicts WTC 7 collapse Stop at 25...all the buildings are "leaning" via camera lens and tilted positioning.
Here is Chosen's proof...an extraordinarily informed "firefighter" and camera zooming in the wrong building.
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#77. To: BeAChooser (#72)
There is way too much NON proof and strange things such as the NORAD stand-down.
I'm not the one in denial here, Diana.
#78. To: BeAChooser (#72)
Not to mention how they identified the hijackers almost immediately, and the strange case of Mohammad Atta/s.
#79. To: Elliott Jackalope, Eoghan, BeAChooser (#75)
That is pretty funny. I wondered what kind of excuse they'd come up with to explain away that one.
So now the new story is "WTC 7 was leaning before it collapsed". Really? How very interesting.
#80. To: Eoghan, ALL (#74)
You folks really are in denial. ROTFLOL! So all the fire fighter reports of the fires and leaning were faked? Do you know that Firefighter Hayden actually measured the lean? Was he just lying? ROTFLOL! http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html "By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors." Another quote by a fireman (Boyle): "“The building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. 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." And there were others that said it was leaning: ""Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway"
It didn't lean...the report is bogus
#81. To: Diana, ALL (#77)
That may be, Diana, but you folks need to sort the wheat from the chaff or your bread won't come out like you want. You contaminate your concerns with provable lies and that only discredits your whole effort. I'm honestly trying to help you but to no avail.
#82. To: Diana (#79)
So you think the firemen are LIARS, Diana? I thought you respected them.
I wondered what kind of excuse they'd come up with to explain away that one.
#83. To: BeAChooser (#63)
Which appears to be this: -- 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.
I'll go with what the BBC said.
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... "
#84. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#83)
Happens all the time, Neil. I hear tell they've even lost the original tapes of the moon landing. No, I'm saying that. Firemen at the scene said that. Even measured the leaning. And you base this on your structural engineering and fire engineering expertise?
by the way we lost some of the tape archives to the greatest event in the last 50 years".
And you say the building was leaning.
as no fire should bring it down like that.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#84)
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. In the case of WTC7, I most certainly do.
And you say the building was leaning.
No, I'm saying that. Firemen at the scene said that. Even measured the leaning.
And you base this on your structural engineering and fire engineering expertise?
#86. To: Neil McIver, ALL (#85)
I know that several different firemen said it was leaning. I know of other reports by people saying it was leaning. Your need to discount ANY FACT that doesn't agree with this notion that bombs brought down the buildings is quite peculiar. Since you want to put YOURSELF up as an expert, care to share with us your credentials in that regard?
Okay, let me get this straight. You don't know if it was leaning or not.
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.
#87. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#81)
And who is "...you folks?" Are you insulting the forum, again, BAC??? The three Silverstein properties fell at the rate of controlled demolition - and you say that is "...provable lies?" Great Coercive Persuasion attempt, there BAC. Still, common sense says 9-11 could ONLY have been an inside job. As desperately as you try; you can't alter that. Even Rosie has figured it out. That may be, Diana, but you folks need to sort the wheat from the chaff or your bread won't come out like you want. You contaminate your concerns with provable lies and that only discredits your whole effort. I'm honestly trying to help you but to no avail.
#88. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#86)
You're whining, again, BAC! Not all that unusual when you don't get your way, but that only illuminates your obviously limp wrist.
#89. To: BeAChooser (#86)
You go first. Let's hear your credentials for doing the evaluation. And remember, reading moronic wingnut blogs doesn't count for anything.
Since you want to put YOURSELF up as an expert, care to share with us your credentials in that regard?
.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#82)
I don't know anything about the firemen, but I thought that BBC video where the newscaster announced the fall of WTC 7 while it was still standing there in the background very odd.
So you think the firemen are LIARS, Diana? I thought you respected them.
#91. To: Minerva (#39)
BAC is in some pickle with that herring... ;) Shalom BALooser./
Red Herring by a desperate Jewish guy shilling for Israels war.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#92. To: BeAChooser (#84) (Edited)
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...
Happens all the time, Neil. I hear tell they've even lost the original tapes of the moon landing.
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#93. To: BeAChooser (#86)
No. I don't know what brought it down, but it certainly appears it was a singular event. I would like to know which particular I-beam supposedly failed that caused all 4 corners of the building to drop simultaneously. What I DO find peculiar is that the BBC reported it had collapsed while the building was still visible in the background, something you apparently refuse to find the least bit unusual. If WTC7 wasn't brought down by bombs, it seems we've been needlessly paying these demolition guys for explosives to drop buildings, right? Sure. I was educated in the USA where armies of lawyers are ready and willing to sue at the drop of a hat, much less the drop of a building, where it's hard enough to avoid suits when one does nothing wrong. You see, in the USA people are trained to bend over backwards to cover their butts from lawyers. Apparently, however, you hold that WTC7 really was a shabby construction such that a simple fires could have brought it down at any time since it's construction. Little did we know the workplace hazard it has been all these years for those working in the building. As for the moon landing tapes, they were archived at the time because they were a different format not compatible with standard audio/video medium of the day, and conversion was not feasible. Only in more recent days is it possible to convert them. 911 was totally different. Everyone knew it was an historic day from the get go, but somehow, a major broadcaster lost records from that day. Yeah, that's also peculiar.
Your need to discount ANY FACT that doesn't agree with this notion that bombs brought down the buildings is quite peculiar.
Since you want to put YOURSELF up as an expert, care to share with us your credentials in that regard?
#94. To: Neil McIver (#93)
Very good point, sir.
If WTC7 wasn't brought down by bombs, it seems we've been needlessly paying these demolition guys for explosives to drop buildings, right?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
#95. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#82)
Nice strawman attack. Apparently when someone makes a point you don't like you attribute opinions to them and then attack them for holding those opinions. You are a dishonest, despicable shyster. And your crap above proves it beyond any doubt.
So you think the firemen are LIARS, Diana? I thought you respected them.
.
#96. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAchooser, diana (#88)
many keen observers have noted that BAC is in fact a TREASONOUS QUEER. several threads back BAC did admit to being a TREASONOUS QUEER. and it is like you said so obvious when he starts whining. BAC told us cryptically that he has a 'relationship' with Jeff Gannon, but he would not tell us if he is the boy or if he is the girl in this relationship. and he would not tell us how much this relationship cost. this fellow is a TREASONOUS QUEER! and he told us it was perfectly OK to eat depleted uranium dust.
but that only illuminates your obviously limp wrist.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest