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: 1760
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
#1. To: All (#0)
Kooks are everywhere it seems.
More and more everyday.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Don't miss this one.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Oh, he's just a BIG LOSER! What kind of a LOSER would believe anything said by a LOSER like this? LOL! ROFL! LOL PMP ROFLOL ROFL ROFLOL ROFL! Sorry, just had to play "government apologist" for a moment... Ick, ick... man, I feel like I need a shower now...
#2. To: tom007 (#1)
Kooks are everywhere it seems.
#3. To: tom007, SKYDRIFTER, Kamala (#0)
Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 truth. The latest is Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer .
#4. To: tom007 (#1)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#5. To: robin (#3)
Tonight on Countdown, Olberman commented on the "stone silence treatment" Bush got from his captive military audience at Fort Erwin, CA today. The military knows he's a lunatic dancing on Isreal's puppet strings.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
#6. To: tom007 (#0)
Short and sweet. Welcome, Colonel.
The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!
#7. To: wbales (#5)
President Says "I Saw A Threat In Saddam Hussein" That's a lot of material for the likes of Olbermann.
America's Commander in Chief says, "And I had a choice to make, and that is whether or not to pull back and hope that chaos wouldn't spread, or to do something about the sectarian violence that was taking place and to help the Iraqis bring order to their capital in order to give them breathing space, time to reconcile their differences after having lived under the thumb of a tyrant for years."
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#8. To: wbales (#5)
The military knows he's a lunatic dancing on Isreal's puppet strings. More good news - thanks.
Tonight on Countdown, Olberman commented on the "stone silence treatment" Bush got from his captive military audience at Fort Erwin, CA today.
#9. To: lodwick (#6)
Oh yeah? Well you just want to have sex with Rosie O'Donnell. Face up to it, man! Eww, sorry, I played it much too real.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#10. To: tom007 (#0)
congrats to Col. Razer.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#11. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#0)
Please note BAC. Lt. Col. Razer is NOT a TREASONOUS QUEER. But you are.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#12. To: Dakmar (#9)
Considering all the mullets that she is awakening to the truth, a mercy-hump might not be remiss...but, doesn't her clock swing the other way?
#13. To: lodwick (#12)
You deserve every bit of ugliness I fishtailed into your yard!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#14. To: tom007 (#0)
Because of the "911 INSIDE JOB" painted on the back glass of my van, I get folks who ask about the DVD's I give away. I like to show them articles of credible folks who believe the same. This guy goes on my short list.
............
Just a reminder... giving away FREEDOM TO FASCISM dvd's is a wonderful way to help Ron Paul.
Note: All my DVD's now contain two videos. And, I have nicer labels now.
#15. To: wakeup. all (#14)
WU is right on - the DVD's and the labels are top-notch. Please do whatever you can to support his efforts, and his unique project.
And, I have nicer labels now.
#16. To: tom007, ALL (#0)
Odd. Not one demolition expert in the world seems to believe that. Is it necessary to alter quotes to fabricate a case against the US government? Apparently so ...
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.
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."
#17. To: BeAChooser (#16)
are you an operative from DU? you seem to be trying to convince the world that all republicans are rude bullshitters like yourself.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#18. To: Morgana le Fay (#17)
BAC's an agent equivocateur.
ss . . ssanibsurdansinuoashin - Geo. W. Bush
#19. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#17)
Come on, Morgana, help us out. Provide us with a statement in the Constitution or US law that defines the form a Declaration of War must take. Or did you just drop by to cheerlead for those who so far haven't been able to do that?
#20. To: randge, ALL (#18)
Lend Morgana a hand in that, randge. I'm sure she(?) will need it.
#21. To: BeAChooser (#19)
provide us with a statement in the Constitution or US law that defines the form any bill must take. 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. lol!!
Provide us with a statement in the Constitution or US law that defines the form a Declaration of War must take.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#22. To: BeAChooser (#19)
your obvious shiftiness is the reason you are a laughing stock on the last three forums you have been on. how was passover?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#23. To: Morgana le Fay (#22)
You said Fish Breath was on a rampage?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#24. To: BeAChooser (#19)
Once again, you're an idiot. This has been explained to you many times, yet you slink off and try your parlour trick with someone you think missed the last show. Pathetic.
Provide us with a statement in the Constitution or US law that defines the form a Declaration of War must take.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#25. To: Minerva (#23)
read the threads. there are at least two. i think he has a lot of pent up bs from sitting out over passover.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#26. To: Fish Breath (#20)
Shalom Fish Breath. Are you on a rampage?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#27. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#21)
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.
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)
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
#29. To: Dakmar, ALL (#24)
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.
"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 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.
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.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#31. To: Morgana le Fay (#30)
That is true. and TREASONOUS QUEERS do also.
12 year olds do this a lot.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
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!!!!!
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#33. To: Minerva, ALL (#28)
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.
The one you wouldn't quote?
#34. To: BeAChooser (#29)
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?
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#35. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#30)
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
12 year olds do this a lot.
#36. To: Dakmar, ALL (#34)
Yes, you definitely are a typical 4um poster.
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)
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?
I did better than that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#38. To: BeAChooser (#36)
Are you still a Jew?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#39. To: BeAChooser (#29)
Red Herring by a desperate Jewish guy shilling for Israels war.
NO ONE has quoted the Constitution or US law as to the form a Declaration of War must take.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#40. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#32)
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.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#35)
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.
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#42. To: Dakmar (#38)
You were a little hard on the BeAGayJooLoser last night, Ward.
#43. To: BeAChooser (#35)
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.
I notice you never provided a link to this 114 you speak of. Why is that?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#44. To: BeAChooser (#35)
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
#45. To: Minerva, ALL (#37)
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.
post the link yourself if you think it says something different.
#46. To: Minerva, ALL (#39)
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 .
Red Herring by a desperate Jewish guy shilling for Israels war.
#47. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#46)
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.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#46) (Edited)
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
#49. To: BeAChooser (#46)
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.
Speaking of red herrings. ROTFLOL!
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#50. To: Minerva, ALL (#48)
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.
I know that you are both Jewish and male. People really have confirmed that.
#51. To: Morgana le Fay, Minerva, ALL (#49)
You and minerva would be likely to agree. ROTFLOL!
minerva is right.
#52. To: BeAChooser (#46)
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.
Speaking of red herrings. ROTFLOL!
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#53. To: BeAChooser (#51)
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.
You and minerva would be likely to agree. ROTFLOL!
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#54. To: BeAChooser (#50) (Edited)
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.
Name the people.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#55. To: Minerva, ALL (#52)
What personal insult would that be?
you tried to interject personal insults.
#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.
What personal insult would that be?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#57. To: BeAChooser (#55)
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.
you tried to interject personal insults.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
#58. To: BeAChooser (#50)
Tel Aviv and invading American political internet forums?
knows which city I live in, knows what I do for a living,
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
#59. To: wbales (#58)
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
#60. To: BeAChooser (#16)
I see you're lying again. You don't give up do you?
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