High Ranking US Major General Exposes 911 official version untrue

I was going to post this in the 9/11 area but do not have enough points.
This is an interview with a retired US Major-General who headed all the Strategic Intelligence Forces around the world.
At 7: 47 he begins explaining how he began to analyse evidence in detail. Very interesting considering his background. Is there anyone better to analyse the evidence?


Link back

youtu.be...

Stubblebine ... look no further.

reply to post by Colbomoose

Not working, your video is.

just to point but this has....

Already Been Posted last month....

But to reiterate what i said on that thread.

it amazes me that 9/11 truthers are handing this guy credibility because he used to be a Major, but he is speaking out about 9/11 truth so what he has to say must be true.... right...

Because this is the same guy who was involved in the First Earth Battalion and I have read the books, these guys had some very wacky idea's, like running into walls and trying to stop a goats heart just by staring at it. besides that though, lets not forget they were also actively involved in developing Remote viewing, mind control using L.S.D and other drugs and were basically the fathers of psychological warfare. How on earth can anyone take this guy seriously.

If i was to say post some ex-CIA agent say for example Michael Scheuer and his views on 9/11 and terrorism I would be shouted down because he is "in on it". Yet truthers will willingly believe the guy who was involved in the early days of mind control and psychological warfare. Surly if anything Truthers should be highly skeptical of this guy, if i was a truther i would probably be screaming "disinfo agent" at this point.

really, the men who stare at goats was not just some rubbish movie, go read the book!

But moving on to the video itself and what our Major has to say.

First thing that raised a eye brow with me was him talking about seeing air photography from a SR-71 during the Korea War, fought during the 1950's. Guys, the SR-71 didn't take its first flight until the mid '60's, he's talking crap.

Actually he talks crap throughout most of that video, its just a regurgitation of the usual truther rhetoric, stuff like "jet fuel cant melt steel", when nobody is saying that it can, only that it can weaken steel. The bit that really had me laughing was when he started to say that at first the pentagon footage showed a missile, then they changed the footage to make it look like a plane

He goes on and on about how he has "proved x, y and z" with out actually showing us any tangible proof and at some points even says "i cant prove that" or "i dont know"

he left in 1984, how the hell could he possibly be any more reliable than me or my mate bob as a source for 9/11 truth.

yer link worked for me......
I think this guy is right on.......
thnks

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Already Posted....


Just last month this was posted and its not quite as interesting as you would like to make out


To reiterate what i said on that thread.

it amazes me that 9/11 truthers are handing this guy credibility because he used to be a Major, but he is speaking out about 9/11 truth so what he has to say must be true.... right...

Because this is the same guy who was involved in the First Earth Battalion and I have read the books, these guys had some very wacky idea's, like running into walls and trying to stop a goats heart just by staring at it. besides that though, lets not forget they were also actively involved in developing Remote viewing, mind control using L.S.D and other drugs and were basically the fathers of psychological warfare. How on earth can anyone take this guy seriously.

If i was to say post some ex-CIA agent say for example Michael Scheuer and his views on 9/11 and terrorism I would be shouted down because he is "in on it". Yet truthers will willingly believe the guy who was involved in the early days of mind control and psychological warfare. Surly if anything Truthers should be highly skeptical of this guy, if i was a truther i would probably be screaming "disinfo agent" at this point.

really, the men who stare at goats was not just some rubbish movie, go read the book!

But moving on to the video itself and what our Major has to say.

First thing that raised a eye brow with me was him talking about seeing air photography from a SR-71 during the Korea War, fought during the 1950's. Guys, the SR-71 didn't take its first flight until the mid '60's, he's talking crap.

Actually he talks crap throughout most of that video, its just a regurgitation of the usual truther rhetoric, stuff like "jet fuel cant melt steel", when nobody is saying that it can, only that it can weaken steel. The bit that really had me laughing was when he started to say that at first the pentagon footage showed a missile, then they changed the footage to make it look like a plane

He goes on and on about how he has "proved x, y and z" with out actually showing us any tangible proof and at some points even says "i cant prove that" or "i dont know"

he left in 1984, how the hell could he possibly be any more reliable than me or my mate bob as a source for 9/11 truth.

edit on 2-10-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Well Mr Supershill!

That was a good character assassination of the OP's source was it not?

I will tell you directly that I do not need any testimony other than my own eyes!

Those three building all came down exactly the same way, text book controlled demolition. ALL OF THEM fell just the right way.

There was no jet fuel melting the steal support in building three, yet it came down all in one neat little heap.

If the authorities want to convince me this was not three controlled demolitions they have got a lot of explaining to do. Yet still there is no VALID official version to explain these strange phenomenon.

reply to post by Revolution9


But you cant actually prove a controlled demolition can you?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


so i'm supposed to believe some guy from britain over one of our major generals, yes you screwed up on his rank because you know nothing of US military, nor any of our other business. ironically you are asking people to not believe a confirmed retired major general about classified information, but you sitting in your living room in britain knows more.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Revolution9

 

But you cant actually prove a controlled demolition can you?

You are right, I can not prove it. Nor will I ever be able to prove it. That is the genius of it, really.

Lol, it's a funny old business. Probably one of the greatest controversies the world has ever seen.

No disrespect to you. We are intelligent people and we do what we do and think what we think.

Thus it hangs there among all the other crazy conspiracy theories, hidden amid ludicrous and outlandish conspiracy theories.

LittleBlackEagle
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

so i'm supposed to believe some guy from britain over one of our major generals, yes you screwed up on his rank because you know nothing of US military, nor any of our other business. ironically you are asking people to not believe a confirmed retired major general about classified information, but you sitting in your living room in britain knows more.

yay!! smiley faces and some Brit bashing to distract from the points i made, Yay!

seriously dude, yes i wrote Major rather than Major General but i do know the difference we have a Major General rank in the British Armed forces. Me writing Major as opposed to Major General so what, you know what i mean and I know what i mean so rather than bothering with that little detail how about you actually address the points i raised. I find it quite funny you saying i know nothing of US Military when I so often find myself having to explain the differences of say DEVGRU and SEAL Team four very often on this forum just because i omitted "general" in his title you claim i know nothing yet at the same time i I do go on to give a pretty decent brief of his military experience.

And so what if I am from Britain does that mean i can not possibly know as much as a retired Major (General, just for you) who has not been in active service since 1984. That is just wrong.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


i'm not bashing brits, i love brits, i'm bashing you personally for thinking you know more than someone who spent many years inside the military, now that's comedy, but nice try pulling the race card.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Prove it, prove to me that he is right about controlled demolition , you cant, there is no proof to support controlled demolition, none.

And the same goes for the Major, sure he can say it was controlled demotion all he wants but it does not give him any more credibility just so happens he is a truther who almost twenty years ago was a high ranking member of the US military.

For example he calls Silverstien "silver-berg" so he can't get his name right, hardly a testament to his knowledge of 9/11 when he is talking about the "pull it" comment if he cant get a dude's name correct.

reply to post by Revolution9


All three buildings came down the same way. Uh, of course they did they collapsed. Sometimes when you say something out loud you will realize how it sounds. Like 'can you clap you hands 10 times in a second'...that is my other favorite.

Please explain how they were 'supposed' to come down.

Then, how about ONE shred of evidence that explosives were used that day. Physical proof. Not paint chips. Not someone saying ' it looked like an explosion'...true physical evidence.

The US could have, in NO way, wired those 3 buildings in NYC without a single piece of evidence being found. They are still finding bone fragments from the 100's of bodies that were never recovered.

With all of the hate for GW Bush II, do you not think that somewhere, someone would have come out and given some proof for the 04 elections? Anything? Use some common sense to 9/11 and you will see the holes and to me there is only one. 93. The one that is the least investigated and talked about is the one with the greatest secret to hide.

Sorry, there was a terror attack that day and the buildings collapsed. End of story.

Here's your video OP,




I have to say though this video is the subject of other threads already.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
he left in 1984, how the hell could he possibly be any more reliable than me or my mate bob as a source for 9/11 truth.

edit on 2-10-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

Just to piggyback off of you here, but this little quote was all I needed to disregard this man's testimony. The man hasn't been in service since 1985 and therefore he would have no access to classified information like 9/11 being an inside job. So giving this guy anymore credence than random youtube video uploader #392,831 on this matter is just a huge appeal to authority fallacy because the guy happened to have a high rank in the military when he served.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I'm no fan of Stubblebine, but your post seems to have trouble keeping things straight and honest as you want to peg the guy as a Loony. Since you mentioned at least two substantially verified topics as evidence for him being off his rocker, I need to suggest that either you don't know the history of those program or--as I suspect--you do indeed, and must attempt to paint them as crazy also due to some agenda to silence legitimate discussions of those topics.

Perhaps your reference volume is that CIA-sponsored book that you sorta mention, The Men Who Stare at Goats. and the movie by that title. The CIA, for decades, did programs working with '___' and other substances. The internet has tons of data on that topic. But probably the best and most complete details of those is a book by Hank Abarelli entitled A Terrible Mistake. It is over 800 pages and excerpts can be found on the internet. As for Remote Viewing, that was also a CIA funded program first at the world-famous Stanford Research Institute SRI) in Menlo Park, Calif. When they proved the remarkable capability, the program then went to the US Army (under the CIA) for many years. The internet has credible data on all of that also.

In trying to paint both areas as illegitimate or pseudo-science you reveal your goal whether that be from personal ignorance of the facts or for some other motive.

For those readers that may have seen the movie, which is a joke in itself, the US Army is made the fall guy with the '___' business. And the term "CIA" is never mentioned once! Yet, from start to finish, '___' experiments have been fully documented as being the CIA's own programs. The MK-Ultra and assorted programs ran by them have been derided too over the years, but they were all part of covert CIA operations done many times on unsuspecting citizens both in the US and surprisingly enough, a small village in France.

matafuchs
reply to post by Revolution9

 

All three buildings came down the same way. Uh, of course they did they collapsed.

Sometimes when you say something out loud you will realize how it sounds. Like 'can you clap you hands 10 times in a second'...that is my other favorite.

Please explain how they were 'supposed' to come down.

Then, how about ONE shred of evidence that explosives were used that day. Physical proof. Not paint chips. Not someone saying ' it looked like an explosion'...true physical evidence.

The US could have, in NO way, wired those 3 buildings in NYC without a single piece of evidence being found. They are still finding bone fragments from the 100's of bodies that were never recovered.

With all of the hate for GW Bush II, do you not think that somewhere, someone would have come out and given some proof for the 04 elections? Anything? Use some common sense to 9/11 and you will see the holes and to me there is only one. 93. The one that is the least investigated and talked about is the one with the greatest secret to hide.

Sorry, there was a terror attack that day and the buildings collapsed. End of story.

May be you are right.

If you hold that as your opinion then please explain how WTC7 came down. It just crumpled up in a pile didn't it, all the way to the bottom.

Out of 3 buildings the fact that not one of them suffered only a partial collapse is fishy!

It's just fishy my friend.

Yes, of course there was a terror attack that day. Some crazy extremists were on all those planes and they did fly into the two building in NYC!

However, it is not as simple as that.

It is not really worth speaking of this any more for me. It will never be accepted because it is just too much for peoples' minds to dare even consider the dark possibilities. I know what I know and believe what I believe. It will have to rest at that.

And there ends my contribution to the subject of 911. This shall be my last public commentary on it because it is in the past and we have to go on. Personally I don't want to destabilise Britain, Israel and U.S.

How dare you insinuate that I have any hatred in my soul for anyone on this earth. I certainly have no hatred towards Mr Bush or anyone else for that matter. That is not the way I do things. That is the only commentary I take issue with. You are a stranger to me and you said that about me. Don't ever say such things about me. You have no idea.

Peace.

reply to post by Revolution9


Maybe you did not understand that I was posting this as a collective argument and not at you directly. Sorry if it offended you.

How dare you insinuate that I have any hatred in my soul for anyone on this earth. I certainly have no hatred towards Mr Bush or anyone else for that matter. That is not the way I do things. That is the only commentary I take issue with. You are a stranger to me and you said that about me. Don't ever say such things about me. You have no idea.

I was trying to state that with ALL of the hatred for the prior administration, would there not be ONE whistleblower who would come forward? That is all that I meant, not that you had any hate. Again, sorry for the confusion.

I have considered the dark possibilities. In the end, I think the entire thing is to cover up 93. It was shot down. The entire truth movement is to keep people from looking into 93 more. Easiest to cover up. Shot down over a rural area. They had the time. Also, 587 a few weeks later was covered up.

reply to post by Revolution9

If you hold that as your opinion then please explain how WTC7 came down. It just crumpled up in a pile didn't it, all the way to the bottom.

Already ahead of you my friend with a suitable answer

Revisiting WTC-7

lots of the answers that the people who doubt the offical narrative regarding 9/11 can be found with some study.