Retired USAF pilot Col. Guy S. Razer says 9/11 was 'inside job' perpetrated by US government

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

No, that's what you mean and it demonstrates your ignorance of History Commons. You assume that just because I've used it as a source, it's some kind of pro-conspiracy, 9/11 truth site.

I know what History Commons is. I was describing what you quoted, not the general tenor of the site.

To the contrary, it's simply an enormous compilation of facts compiled from a variety of sources, then categorized by topic, subject and date. All the information and quotes are derived from "official" sources like MSM news articles and the 9/11 Commission Report, so if anything, it's biased towards the Official Fairy Tale.

Let's look at some of what you quoted.

“the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level.… Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”

Your plan was to suggest to someone with little expertise in the matter that there's something odd about Hanjour's maneuver, that the quote supplied in its full context to you by the poster above should be seen in a wider atmosphere of distrust. Particularly for the view expressed in it that suggests Hanjour was capable of the turn.

But of course no such general suspicion about Hanjour exists, except on conspiracy sites. And the article you quote simply says that the turn was "tight" (so what?) and that sources (who?) said that the plane was flown skilfully. Never mind that this is just one tiny newspaper article quoting unnamed people, written by someone who almost certainly has no aviation expertise, it actually just provides an unsubstantiated editorial opinion that the move required some piloting talent. It also has a suspicious lacuna in the middle, so I wonder if, ironically, the rest of the quote doesn't quite back you up...

The other quotes are similar. It's an age old conspiracy theorist's tactic. Try to present a series of cherry picked quotes that give a false impression of general opinion. In this case it's just especially ironic that you're using it to try to defuse a quote that's been supplied to you in full after you butchered it to "prove" your point.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Nah, if I really wanted to influence the gullible, I'd join an enormous conspiracy site like ATS, then spend all my time in ONE forum raising phony doubts about 9/11 and posting pro-OS propaganda on every thread.

I might even go on the offensive and accuse others of misrepresenting the facts so they wouldn't catch on to me.

Perhaps you can show e evidence that the the general aviation community agrees with you? Because they're remarkably quiet on the issue.

reply to post by gr82m8okdok


Thanks for the information.

It seems that the payout actually took six years.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Yeah, would be good..
Hard though when you consider how quickly they sealed off the areas, confiscated evidence and then shipped of the rubble and parts..

Truly.
And what about those "agents" running around in black pants and white shirts cleaning up the debris near the Pentagon? Isn't that a crime scene?
How do they have the authority to rush around confiscating video footage and tampering with evidence?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I know what History Commons is. I was describing what you quoted, not the general tenor of the site.

Either you don't know or you're being disingenuous about what I quoted, because it was exactly as it appeared on History Commons, from the first mention of Marcel Bernard forward.

What a cheap ploy to craft a lengthy reply that suggests otherwise.

Just curious, are you as obsessed with defending the 9/11 OS in your off hours are you are here?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


As I thought. No attempt to address the content of what I wrote. My point is that the source you're quoting is biased towards a certain view of 9/11. That's obvious from the quotes it employs and the way it marshalls them.

You don't just get to anoint it as an unbiased source because you like it.

Oh, and well dione on getting the double up of "ways not to answer questions while pressing for 9/11 TRUTH" with a classic shill accusation. Very lazy.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


All the things you accuse others of doing, and its only the official story believers i might add, ARE THE ONES ACTUALLY DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSE OF.

The odds are so astronomical that even one of these things could have happened , however it is SLIGHTLY possible, so you say " well, that means all the thousands of them that happened one after another are EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED... there is NOTHING WRONG WITH it being worse odds than someone winning the Powerball lottery 5 straight times, but hell , THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

All the things you accuse others of doing, and its only the official story believers i might add, ARE THE ONES ACTUALLY DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSE OF.

The odds are so astronomical that even one of these things could have happened , however it is SLIGHTLY possible, so you say " well, that means all the thousands of them that happened one after another are EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED... there is NOTHING WRONG WITH it being worse odds than someone winning the Powerball lottery 5 straight times, but hell , THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

I literally have no idea what any of that means. Sorry.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Not surprising.

The dream world you live in must be more amazing than a '___' trip, ergo, in another dimension.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

After 4 years of Googling, where is the solid evidence it was a Inside Job

Even if the remarks were made by a 5 star general of Norad, there still heresay without physical proof. I see lots of Evidence that doesn't support either view. I also find it hard to believe such a thing happened without a single piece of Evidence being leaked with so many people that must have been Involved.

Governments and Military have more leaks than a sieve, and somebody must know somebody that knows something if it exists, still Nothing.

Wow. It's weird how these people that are apparently paid to do this debunking, based on the fact that they seem to have all the time in the world to lurk on websites like this, don't seem to have real jobs, have such WEAK arguments.

Let's say it was a normal crime, a murder for money for example, and cops were involved.

Huge insurance payouts, check. (Used to be called "a certain type of" lightning when buildings conveniently burned down)

ALL crime scene evidence removed and cleaned up IMMEDIATELY. Check.

Large amounts of people who should have been there but luckily were late to work, called in sick, got a flat, missed their flight, etc. Check.

Owner wanted to tear down buildings, they were huge white elephants losing money for years, but prohibitive costs due to asbestos prevented him. Check.

Buildings sold to new owner, first time in their history, right before the incident. Check.

Extra insurance rider, that NEVER existed before, against terrorist attack, something that has NEVER happened in the US, before or since, added right before incident. Check.

Steel framed buildings, SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand large planes crashing into them, collapse into their own footprints, just like a controlled demolition. Check.

Steel framed buildings collapse from fire. Never happened before or since in the entire world, but that day it happened not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES. Check.

I could go on and on with more fishy aspects, but if this was a normal murder investigation, or even a Fire Marshal investigation, and even ONE of these things occurred, would point the finger right at the guilty parties immediately, and heads would rolll. But, no, no way. That's a crazy conspiracy theory.

Let's say I had just bought some falling down half vacant apartment building. Instead of doing any repairs, I took out a huge fire insurance policy. Then six weeks later, the place burned down. Then I walled it off, didn't allow any fire investigators to even LOOK at the rubble for evidence of accelerants, etc., while my buddies carted everything off. Then I demanded, and got, DOUBLE PAYMENT on the insurance. Then told anyone who even questioned me that they were insane, and terrorists, even witnesses who heard the firebombs going off.

DO YOU THINK I WOULD GET OFF SCOTT FREE, OR GO TO JAIL? I guess if I paid off all the cops and fire marshals so they were on my side, I would walk.

WAKE UP YA MORONS!

reply to post by CaptChaos


Not a single thing you wrote there, is relevant. Nor, very accurate. But, is somewhat standard fare for those who WANT to see a "conspiracy" out of sheer desire.....

Top it off, with an insult at the end??

What a class act!!

( )

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

Not a single thing you wrote there, is relevant. Nor, very accurate. But, is somewhat standard fare for those who WANT to see a "conspiracy" out of sheer desire.....
Top it off, with an insult at the end??
What a class act!!

(

)

Care to point out ALL the "Not very acurate" bits weed..

As for ending with an insult, weed, you wrote the book on insuting people..

reply to post by CaptChaos


Its amazing that you can cram that many lies into a post and then accuse others of being asleep.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

As I thought. No attempt to address the content of what I wrote. My point is that the source you're quoting is biased towards a certain view of 9/11. That's obvious from the quotes it employs and the way it marshalls them.

You don't just get to anoint it as an unbiased source because you like it.

Oh, and well dione on getting the double up of "ways not to answer questions while pressing for 9/11 TRUTH" with a classic shill accusation. Very lazy.

Perhaps you need to take your own advice before you start condemning everyone who doesn’t agree with you, or the OS. You make all these accusations against ATS posters and their opinions on this thread, yet you do not back up your assumptions and accusations against them, with any evidence.

Try to present a series of cherry picked quotes that give a false impression of general opinion. In this case it's just especially ironic that you're using it to try to defuse a quote that's been supplied to you in full after you butchered it to "prove" your point.

You claim Truther only cherry pick what they want to, yet you do not provide any evidence to your claims against GoldenFleece.
You say GoldenFleece butchered a quote, why don’t you show where this was done?

The other quotes are similar. It's an age old conspiracy theorist's tactic.

I wasn’t aware there was a particular conspiracy theorist's tactic? Is there a hand book?

FYI, if it wasn’t for many conspiracy theorist's we couldn’t have solved so many crimes, many conspiracy theorists are scientists who use science to prove or disprove formulas. Perhaps, you enjoy using the negative connotations “conspiracy theorist's” the way MSN created it and uses it, yet in the real world of science and critical, logical, thinking men such as scientist are rewarded for solving problems.

Perhaps you can show e evidence that the the general aviation community agrees with you? Because they're remarkably quiet on the issue.

Can you provide evidence that the general aviation community agrees with the OS?

You cannot prove something that is not there.
You cannot prove a fallacy.
You cannot prove something that never was.
The fact is the OS of 911 is a proven fallacy; therefore it cannot be proven true.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Something didn't look right about the way "Lt Col Razer" was referenced. So I did a Google search and found the "Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" which is apparently the ultimate source of all the other blog quotes I found. The above site, allegedly run by military people is full of non military abbreviations. I am skeptical of "Lt Col Razer's" experience list. When did he have time to put in a 20 year career and then fly with McDonnell Douglas which went out of business/merged with Boeing in 1997. It doesn't fit retiring in 2002.

reply to post by CharlesMartel


Maybe he was seconded to other work?

My father was born in the US but left when he was a child. When I was little, he was approached by the US to do some work for the US Army. Throughout his work life, he did things for them, but we never knew that his golf trips in summer and curling trips in winter were to do work for the US. To have refused would have meant harm to our family and we had a small taste of it that served as a warning to him. As a child, I was sometimes brought along when he met his handler and got to play with the handler's children, in parks, etc. When my father died fifteen years later, his handler showed up at the funeral service and whispered in my ear that my dad was a great man. Then he slipped away. After the funeral, we found altered papers, American dog tags and some financial papers from the US government. We ransacked the house and found very carefully hidden things that answered some questions. When his handler died a couple of years ago, the obit read that he was responsible for secret ops and it named a couple of things. We do know that dad was part of something bigger, but we wonder if he knew the whole scenario.

All this to say that it takes a lot of courage for a retired Col to put himself out there, to go against conventional opinion, and to risk ridicule. Maybe he knows just one piece of the puzzle?

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

Something didn't look right about the way "Lt Col Razer" was referenced. So I did a Google search and found the "Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" which is apparently the ultimate source of all the other blog quotes I found. The above site, allegedly run by military people is full of non military abbreviations. I am skeptical of "Lt Col Razer's" experience list. When did he have time to put in a 20 year career and then fly with McDonnell Douglas which went out of business/merged with Boeing in 1997. It doesn't fit retiring in 2002.

Apparently the guy is living in a tent and struggling financially which also seems odd for a retired USAF Lt Col with many years service :-

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Alfie1


A blog??
Now there's a credible source..

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

Something didn't look right about the way "Lt Col Razer" was referenced. So I did a Google search and found the "Military Officers for 9/11 Truth" which is apparently the ultimate source of all the other blog quotes I found. The above site, allegedly run by military people is full of non military abbreviations. I am skeptical of "Lt Col Razer's" experience list. When did he have time to put in a 20 year career and then fly with McDonnell Douglas which went out of business/merged with Boeing in 1997. It doesn't fit retiring in 2002.

He could have been seconded like aboutface said, or he could have had a break in service. More than one person has had a break where they got out, went to work in the civilian world and then rejoined the military. I had a couple of buddies get recalled from inactive reserve for the first gulf war and then after they were back on active duty decided to stay in and finish a 20 year career.
There's nothing fishy about that claim.

reply to post by Myendica


I reckon nothing is going to change unless those directly involved come forward with PROOF that shows who asked them to get involved, what part they played, what they were told to do and by whom, with hopefully copies of phone calls, memos or other form of hard copy that they have.
This would also include people like the guy who was found to be an actor coming forward and spilling the beans and other bit players like him. There were heaps of bit players.

Until someone who was directly involved in the conspiracy comes forward, it's never going to be answered and nothing will ever come of it.
That's what I've resolved myself to believe.

But as to the actual thread topic, it's great that this retired colonel has come out with the findings of his own research. I guess we can add to the architects and engineers and others who have proven that what they said happened isn't really what happened.