Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

maccy

Master Poster
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
2,094
The other substantive part of stundie's opening post in the hopeless christophera concrete core thread was this list:

stundie said:
BTW Other tin hat wearers who don't buy the official story are: -

Rep. Curt Weldon – Vice Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Ten-term Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania.
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003. Currently serves on the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. U.S. Senator from Georgia 1996 - 2002. Secretary of State of Georgia 1982 - 1996. Administrator of the U.S. Veterans Administration 1977 - 1981. Captain, U.S. Army awarded Silver Star and Bronze Star for bravery in Viet Nam. Triple amputee from war injuries
Senator Bob Graham – Former U.S. Senator from Florida 1987 - 2005. Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Co-Chairman of the Joint House-Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (JICI) that investigated the events of 9/11. Former Governor of Florida 1979 - 1986
Senator Mark Dayton – Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Services. U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 - 2001. Former U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Former Deputy United States Attorney in New York. Former FBI agent. Former officer in the United States Army JAG Corps Reserve.
Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977 - 1980). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the independent institute.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. From 1990 through 1994, he served as Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C.
Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines

I've started this thread so that stundie can provide evidence for this claim.
 
The other substantive part of stundie's opening post in the hopeless christophera concrete core thread was this list:



I've started this thread so that stundie can provide evidence for this claim.
From my underdtanding most or all of these people do believe in CT or strongly suggest CT's to different extents.
I agree with him that some of these people are " tin hat wearers"
Major General Albert Stubblebine is the first that comes to mind.
 
From my underdtanding most or all of these people do believe in CT or strongly suggest CT's to different extents.
I agree with him that some of these people are " tin hat wearers"
Major General Albert Stubblebine is the first that comes to mind.

I should make it clear that stundie's use of the phrase "tin hat wearers" is ironic and he is citing this list in support of his, as yet unspecified, "inside job" theories.
 
Well what happens is Bob Graham says that XYZ document isn't being shown to them because it's being kept secret by ABC agency, so he makes a statement like "it'll be X years until we get the full truth about 9/11", and since he used the word "truth" and "9/11" in the same sentence, he gets added to the list of people who don't "buy" the official story, in a clever attempt to imply that their cause is widespread.
 
Weldon, my lame duck Representative, was leading the charge to investigate Able Danger. He lambasted the Defense Intelligence Agency for obstructing the investigation and initiating a smear campaign against whistleblower Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

He believed that the investigation into Able Danger would turn up evidence of pre-9/11 incompetence and that defense officials were engaged in a CYA campaign.

He's never suggested any intentional US involvement in 9/11.
 
The unfortunately reality is that truthers consider the CYA-coverup investigators as people "on their side". That's probably never going to go away unless we mounted some kind of campaign of getting them to state, on the record, their positions.
 
The unfortunately reality is that truthers consider the CYA-coverup investigators as people "on their side". That's probably never going to go away unless we mounted some kind of campaign of getting them to state, on the record, their positions.
That's why they can claim that 138% (or whatever) of Americans support their position.
 
If all these important people believe a conspiracy by the US govt to kill 3000 of it's own citizens then shouldn't they be..... like..... doing something about it?

:m1helmet:
 
Last edited:
It's kind of sad that we can start a thread like this, make their point for them, explain the sources and the issues for them, and then debunk it. With no input, at all, from them.

We don't even need conspiracy theorists anymore.
 
Interesting. This is tantamount to the Aryan Nation claiming that everybody who has a problem with affirmative action is 'on their side'.
 
If all these important people believe a conspiracy by the US govt to kill 3000 of it's own citizens then shouldn't they be..... like..... doing something about it?

:m1helmet:
Sheesh, Do Something? Give them a break. How are they supposed to make youtube videos and post on Internet forums when they have real jobs. ;)
 
Well what happens is Bob Graham says that XYZ document isn't being shown to them because it's being kept secret by ABC agency, so he makes a statement like "it'll be X years until we get the full truth about 9/11", and since he used the word "truth" and "9/11" in the same sentence, he gets added to the list of people who don't "buy" the official story, in a clever attempt to imply that their cause is widespread.

You're probably not far off there :D IIRC, Graham's book Intelligence Matters is very critical of the Bush administration's response to and investigation of 9/11, and Graham does believe there was more Saudi involvement than the 9/11 Commission concluded (he believes Omar al-Bayoumi - who Graham thinks was spying for the Saudis - helped out the hijackers).

I really don't think, and hope Graham's not, a tin-hat wearer...
 
PC Roberts writes some incisive stuff. He really understands how governments work, but his articles all carry a strain of "Chicken Little" that is disturbing.

He seems to be really mad at neocons, so much so that it blurs his judgment. I still read his columns now and again.

DR
 
The unfortunately reality is that truthers consider the CYA-coverup investigators as people "on their side". That's probably never going to go away unless we mounted some kind of campaign of getting them to state, on the record, their positions.

Another one of these is Colleen Rowley, who ran for Congress in Minnesota and lost. If you read her website, it has a lot of information about her efforts to hold the CIA's feet to the fire for their handling of the 9-11 investigation. It's difficult to summarize in one sentence, but suffice it to say that there's no evidence she believes the WTC towers were destroyed by Star Wars Death Beams or anything of that sort. Of course, the twoofers claimed her as one of the candidates alongside their likes of Bob Bowman, and called her a "9-11 Whistleblower" as if she were Sibel Edmonds.

Should we be letting these people know that their names are being co-opted by the psycho misfits that make up the "9-11 Truth" movement, and that their beliefs are being represented? Rowley seems to have a powerful commitment to finding out why our intelligence system failed, even at the risk of her own career. And Bob Graham doesn't seem the conspiracy type either. I bet these people would be furious to know they're being associated with these kooks.
 
Should we be letting these people know that their names are being co-opted by the psycho misfits that make up the "9-11 Truth" movement, and that their beliefs are being represented? Rowley seems to have a powerful commitment to finding out why our intelligence system failed, even at the risk of her own career. And Bob Graham doesn't seem the conspiracy type either. I bet these people would be furious to know they're being associated with these kooks.


I don't know what extent these people are being co-opted. Stundie has only said that they "don't buy" the official version, nothing else. Also we don't know what stundie's take on it beyond "things don't add up". You can read the whole of stundie's original post here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2118440#post2118440

If s/he posts again perhaps s/he will make things clearer.
 
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the independent institute.

This guy, a former big wig in the reagan era, seems to be a bit of a truther. He certainly believes in the NEOCON/PNAC/JEWISH adgenda, amking several references to the jews and such, as well as discussing 9/11 on this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6079520924777181036

TAM

Edit:
After listening to his take on 9/11...yup, he is a truther...sad, but true. And he thinks the american people are gullible sheeple.

TAM
 
Last edited:
Should we be letting these people know that their names are being co-opted by the psycho misfits that make up the "9-11 Truth" movement, and that their beliefs are being represented? Rowley seems to have a powerful commitment to finding out why our intelligence system failed, even at the risk of her own career. And Bob Graham doesn't seem the conspiracy type either. I bet these people would be furious to know they're being associated with these kooks.
As one of his constituents, I emailed Curt Weldon asking him to clarify a statement he made at a town hall meeting after someone asked him a question and pitched a DVD featuring a talk by Steven Jones:
Dave Slesinger speaks up: Congressman, that was my question, I, uh, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.

Rep. Weldon: Yea.

Dave Slesinger: It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican, he praises Reagan, he quotes St. Paul. I think I have enough for everybody. Just ask me.

Rep. Weldon: It'll open your eyes, because his allegations are pretty strong.
I told him I was very concerned about what he meant by the statement I bolded and asked him to clarify it. I also asked him if he was aware of the full scope of Jones' allegations and if he was aware that this transcript was being used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists to lend credence to Jones' work.

I never got a response. :con2:
 
We could go with a small-scale letter writing campaign. We'd get their attention with even a dozen emails.
 
People who don't but the offical story.

Sorry...Being a newbie means I cannot post links. But a bit of research on google will find you the links. Here goes....

Rep. Curt Weldon
Fox News Article 8/28/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission "There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me," Weldon told FOX News on Thursday, blasting the Sept. 11 commission for not taking the claims more seriously. He said some panel members were trying to smear Shaffer and Able Danger. "What's the Sept. 11 commission got to hide?" Weldon asked."

Press conference transcript 9/17/05: Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report "There's something wrong here, something tragically wrong. The American people, the families, the country and the Congress need to know the truth, the whole truth, the complete truth. And so far we haven't gotten it. … Somebody's got to connect the dots and answer the questions. If the 9/11 Commission won't do it, then Congress has to do it."
Speech on the floor of Congress 10/19/05: "I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is something desperately wrong, Mr. Speaker. There is something outrageous at work here. This is not a third-rate burglary of a political campaign headquarters. This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people, changed the course of history, led to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has disrupted our country, our economy and people's lives."

-------------------------------

Senator Bob Graham
Salon Article 9/8/04: "As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification. ...

Question by Mary Jacoby: You write about the Bush administration's suppression of the joint House-Senate intelligence panel's findings on Saudi Arabian links to 9/11. What exactly was suppressed, and why?

Bob Graham: In general terms it included the details of why we [on the committee] had raised suspicion that the Saudi government and various representatives of Saudi interests had supported some of the hijackers -- and might have supported all of them. My own personal conclusion was that the evidence of official Saudi support for at least two of the terrorists in San Diego was, as one CIA agent said, incontrovertible. ...

The White House played a heavy role throughout not only our investigation but the investigation of the 9/11 commission."

Note: Despite the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 finding that foreign governments supported the 9/11 terrorist suspects, the 9/11 Commission states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." (p. 172)

----------------------

Senator Mark Dayton

Senate Hearings on the 9/11 Commission Report 7/31/04: "They [NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission. ... For almost three years now NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history."
Editor's note: On August 1, 2006, Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, "We, to this day, don't know why NORAD the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied." Despite the many public statements by 9/11 Commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
Article 7/31/04: "Dayton, a former Minnesota state auditor, called the FAA's and NORAD's failures "the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence that I've ever, under those extreme circumstances, witnessed in the public sector."

----------------------

Louis Freeh
Wall Street Journal Essay 11/17/05: "Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. … No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate."

--------------------------------

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

------------------------

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Article 7/10/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said."

------------------------------

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Google Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…

Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

---------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

-------------------------------

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve – Commander of Special Troops Batallion, 9th Theater Support Command. Former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts. A former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure. Awarded the Bronze Star for bravery. 23-year military intelligence career.

Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee 2/15/06: Regarding the Able Danger project - “... basic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools ... resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. ...

After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a “preconceived” conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were “urban legend”.

------------------------------------------------

Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps – Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer and Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 1991 - 1998.

Google Video 7/22/06: "I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case."

------------------------------

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer

Statement 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC1, 2, and 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"

--------------------------------

Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.

Google Video 7/22/06: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that’s certainly an impeachable offense."

----------------------------

Robert David Steele (Vivas) – U.S. Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years. Second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992 and a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. Also former clandestine services case officer with the CIA. 25-year U.S. military and intelligence career.

Essay 10/7/06: Review of Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA. "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war, and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations. ...

This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism....

I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it. I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers."

Article 10/27/06: "While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.

"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

------------------------

Robert Baer – Former CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations. Awarded Career Intelligence Medal. 21-year CIA veteran. Author of two nonfiction books about CIA operations, See No Evil and Sleeping with the Devil

Audio Interview 6/9/06: Thom Hartmann: "Are you of the opinion there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?"

Baer: "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."

Hartmann: "And why is it not being investigated?"

Baer: "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there been no, any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder."

-----------------------------------
And from Tin Hat wearers world wide...The International Community who do not believe the offical story....

Paul Hellyer – Former Minister of National Defense of Canada. Former Deputy Prime Minister. Former Member of House of Commons.

Video 5/25/04: Regarding 9/11 "I think the inquiry has been very shallow, very superficial. I would like to see a much tougher, more in-depth inquiry. … I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask those questions and insist on getting answers, at least to why some of the things that happened that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable. … We have to try and get the truth. … I hope that somebody has the courage and persistence to keep at it until we get it."

----------------------------------

Michael Meacher – Former Under Secretary for Industry, Under Secretary for Health and Social Security, Minister for the Environment, and Member of the House of Commons (UK).

Google Video 5/6/06: Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report "It was a 580-page avoidance of any serious explanation. … The official investigative report says the US has never been able to find the sources of financing for 9/11. And then they say this "That after all is a matter of no great importance." I find that astonishing. It is a matter of absolutely central importance. So there was a very great deal of evidence. And it seems to me extraordinary that the United States with its stupendous military capabilities and the most technologically advanced country in the world completely and totally failed to follow up on these leads."

Essay 7/22/04: "[Ahmed Omar Saeed] Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not? ...

When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?"

-----------------------------------
Andreas von Buelow, PhD – Former State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Defense of West Germany. Former Minister of Research and Technology. Member of Bundestag (Parliament) 1969 - 1994.

Article/Interview 1/13/02: "The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."

Google Video 5/6/06: "The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one."

-------------------------------------

General Leonid Ivashov – Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces on 9/11/2001, and Department Chief for General affairs in the Soviet Union's Ministry of Defense.

Essay 1/22/06: Regarding 9/11 "Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. ...

Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."

------------------------

General Pervez Musharraf – President of Pakistan and Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. Assumed power on October 12, 1999 after a coup d'état and assumed the title of President on June 20, 2001.

New Yorker Article 8/12/02: "Musharraf told me that he was still unconvinced that bin Laden was the main figure in the attacks. "I didn't think it possible that Osama sitting up there in the mountains could do it," he said. "He was perhaps the sponsor, the financier, the motivating force. But those who executed it were much more modern. They knew the U.S., they knew aviation. I don't think he has the intelligence or the minute planning. The planner was someone else."

------------------------

General Mirza Aslam Beg – Former Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Army.

Book: Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA. "Many of us in this region believe that Osama or his al-Qaeda were not responsible for 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, yet the coalition led by United States is busy on ‘Afghan bashing,’ chasing objectives, which go much beyond Osama bin Laden. The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the ‘rogue elements’ of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise."

-------------------------

Mohamed Hassanein Heikal – Former Foreign Minister of Egypt.

Guardian Article 10/10/01: Regarding 9/11 "Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication."

Hope thats enough to keep the fire burning....Sorry I can't provide links and that its in basic text. But I had to change the editor, otherwise it wouldn't let me post thinking I'd put links in.
 
Truly, there are dumb people everywhere. Still--I'm sure most CTs live in basements.
 
Last edited:
Perrylogan

This is what it comes down too! You cannot debate so you name call?

I maybe speculating here, but I'm guessing that you are not as intelligent academically has some of the people I have mentioned here, because if you were, I doubt you would be name calling.

So yes! There are truly dumb people everywhere Perrylogan.
 
Paul Hellyer – Former Minister of National Defense of Canada. Former Deputy Prime Minister. Former Member of House of Commons.

Video 5/25/04: Regarding 9/11 "I think the inquiry has been very shallow, very superficial. I would like to see a much tougher, more in-depth inquiry. … I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask those questions and insist on getting answers, at least to why some of the things that happened that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable. … We have to try and get the truth. … I hope that somebody has the courage and persistence to keep at it until we get it."

Just a quick hit before I go to work. Americans may not know Paul Hellyer very well, but he also believes in UFO coverups. So judge him accordingly.

Honestly, not all of us Hosers are like that.
 
Discrediting - A great tactic for disproving.

I know nothing of Paul Hellyer, but to dismiss this because he believes in UFO Coverups would be like dismissing evidence because he believe in Jesus.

Neither the exsistence of Jesus or UFO Coverups have been proven but if he said he believed in Jesus, would you judge him accordingly??
 
I know nothing of Paul Hellyer, but to dismiss this because he believes in UFO Coverups would be like dismissing evidence because he believe in Jesus.

Neither the exsistence of Jesus or UFO Coverups have been proven but if he said he believed in Jesus, would you judge him accordingly??

Sir, I think the point is that even IF every person on your list came out and publicly declared that they believe it was an inside job, it in no way proof of that fact.

It's a logical fallacy. We deal with evidence here, not opinion.
 
I know nothing of Paul Hellyer, but to dismiss this because he believes in UFO Coverups would be like dismissing evidence because he believe in Jesus.

Neither the exsistence of Jesus or UFO Coverups have been proven but if he said he believed in Jesus, would you judge him accordingly??

Most people who believe in Jesus are up front that their belief is based entirely on Faith. That is, belief without evidence. I disagree with them, but at least they're not asking me to accept a whole lot of lame evidence in the process. Thus, I have no basis for evaluating their ability to evaluate actual evidence.

In contrast, UFOists and CTists both claim to have "evidence" of their beliefs, and argue that we should share their beliefs based on this evidence. However, whenever we examine the evidence, it is always found to be severly lacking.

Thus we can conclude that what they believe to be sufficient evidence to support a belief, is in fact not sufficient. Their skills at evaluating evidence are thus clearly lacking.

If someone has an existing track record of believing things based on insufficient evidence, then yes, I believe I can conclude that their other beliefs can also be called into question. It's not a slam dunk, but we're justified in setting a higher standard for them, before we waste more of our time on them.

Show me someone with a track record of getting things right who believes the 9/11 Trooth stuff, and I'll take a look at the evidence that convinced them*. Show me UFOists and other woos, and I'm simply not going to waste my time with it. Boy who cries wolf, and all.


*Someone like Bob Park, who has a history of debunking weird claims. If he came out in support of 9/11 Trooth, it would be worth considering his opinion. He won't however, as there's no good evidence.
 
Last edited:
Sorry...Being a newbie means I cannot post links. But a bit of research on google will find you the links. Here goes....
Stundie, thanks for taking the time to put that together. It's rare that we get a critic of the official version who brings support for his arguments! Here are some brief observations. Where I've made dismissive comments such as "Idiocy," those issues have been discussed in detail on these forums.

Rep. Curt Weldon
Big on grandstanding and righteous indignation. Light on facts.
-------------------------------
Senator Bob Graham
Stundie said:
Note: Despite the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 finding that foreign governments supported the 9/11 terrorist suspects, the 9/11 Commission states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." (p. 172)
As published, the Joint Intelligence Committee's report doesn't say that any solid evidence of foreign government support was found. The problem is that a whole chapter of that report dealing with that issue has been classified by the Bush administration. They say its release would reveal intelligence gathering methods. That may be true, but Bob Graham, who was in a position to know, says that the chapter ties some Saudi officials to two of the hijackers:

“High officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and execute the tragedy of September 11,” Graham said in a television interview.

Graham was referring to the extraordinary case of Nawaf al-Hazami and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two Saudis who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon. Both men were known Al Qaeda operatives and tracked by US intelligence since 1999. They flew under their own names to the US after attending a meeting of the Islamist terrorist group in Malaysia, where they were under CIA surveillance. The CIA knew they had entered the country, yet nothing was done to inform any law enforcement or immigration officials. When one of the men’s visas expired, the State Department quickly renewed it.

According to the congressional report, once in Los Angeles, they were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, who is described as someone who “had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia” and was believed by the FBI to “be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.”

Bayoumi went to collect the pair directly from a closed-door meeting in the Saudi consulate and then took them to San Diego. There they moved in with a man who was the FBI’s chief informant in the city on Islamist groups. Thus, these two known terrorist operatives were in contact with the CIA, Saudi intelligence and the FBI in the months leading up to the attacks.

The joint congressional committee was denied permission to interview the FBI informant.

Further indications of the connections of both the Saudi ruling family and the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus with the September 11 hijackers have surfaced with the publication of the book “Why America Slept,” by Gerald Posner. That Posner’s thesis is taken seriously within ruling circles was made clear by a two-page review published in the September 8 issue of Time magazine.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/s11-s11.shtml
Graham wrote a book on the subject. I haven't read it, but I'll bet it's fascinating.

This report by the Congressional Research Service is an excellent overview of the subject: Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues
----------------------

Senator Mark Dayton
Yes, NORAD officials did lie about the probability of being able to intercept flight 93, and they should be held accountable for that. The problem is, NORAD had no chance to intercept that plane, and that wasn't their fault.
----------------------

Louis Freeh
Former FBI Director Freeh has expressed concerns about how the information gathered by the Able Danger program was handled. The comments that Stundie quoted were made prior to the release of the Pentagon's Able Danger report. I don't know if Freeh has spoken about that report, which can be found here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Able_Danger_report.pdf

I haven't read the report: 25 pages remain tied up in FOIA land. It's worth reading in full the analysis of JREFers Darth Rotor and Brainster on what has been released. Given the haziness of memories, the contradictory nature of the accounts, and the classification of some of the report, it seems unlikely that we'll know the full story about Able Danger any time soon, if ever. According to DR and Brainster, this is unlikely to be a "smoking gun."
--------------------------------

Major General Albert Stubblebine
"The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
Idiocy.
------------------------

Col. Ronald D. Ray
Opinions without evidence.
------------------------------

Col. Robert Bowman

Google Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible."
Opinions without evidence.

"… There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…"
"Prove?" Not that I've seen.
---------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg
"The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
Idiocy.
-------------------------------

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
See Able Danger comments above. Schaeffer does not come off well. People who were more closely involved with the program do not verify his claims.
------------------------------------------------

Major Scott Ritter
Google Video 7/22/06: "I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case."
Fair enough. I feel the same way.
------------------------------

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler
Statement 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists,
False. All the hijackers' names are on the flight manifests. Zeigler is mistaking these for the lists of victims. Further, on 9/13/01 the Boston Globe did publish the passenger lists, including the hijackers, for AA11 and UA175.

BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive,
Early, confused reports were quickly corrected. Zeigler needs to catch up with information since October, 2001.

"the obvious demolitions of WTC1, 2, and 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"
Complete idiocy.
--------------------------------

Raymond L. McGovern
Google Video 7/22/06: "I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: What’s being covered up? Is it gross malfeasance, gross negligence, misfeasance? … Now there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions. … I just want to reassert, what Scott [Ritter, former Major in the U.S. Marines Corps, former Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq] said and this is the bottom line for me, just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11. The cynical way in which he played on our trauma, used it to justify attacking, making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11. That suffices for me, I think Scott is exactly right, that’s certainly an impeachable offense."
I disagree that the 9/11 report is a joke. I do think the Bush administration used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq.
----------------------------
Robert David Steele
Discussed in these forums. Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
Robert Baer
Opinions not backed with evidence.
-----------------------------------
Paul Hellyer
Opinions. I'd have to do some research about what he thinks wasn't investigated properly.
----------------------------------
Michael Meacher
Discussed in these forums. Gets most of his facts completely wrong.
-----------------------------------
Andreas von Buelow
Discussed in these forums. Gets most of his facts completely wrong.
-------------------------------------
General Leonid Ivashov
Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
General Pervez Musharraf
Opinions not backed with evidence.
------------------------
General Mirza Aslam Beg
Opinions not backed with evidence.
-------------------------
Mohamed Hassanein Heikal
Opinions not backed with evidence.
 
Who said it would prove anything.

Sorry for getting it all twisted.

I never said anything about this post proving 9/11 was an inside job. I have other evidence for that in other post. (Sorry can't post links because I'm a newbie or should that be noob??)

The running theme I've noticed through out the 9/11 Forums on here is those who do not believe the offical version of events are either, nuts, paranoid, conspiracy nuts et all kinds of names.

The point of my post was to show you that not everyone who doesn't believe the offical story are nut jobs, tin hat wearers, kool-aid drinker etc. Who spend all there time on the internet in a bunker.

People that are educated or are in a position of power/responsibilty have also question the offical version because there are bits which do not make sense or contradict each other.


I could say that when the people in here start calling people names like tin Hater wearers....They are usuing logical fallacy!! Because you cannot prove from sitting front of a PC that anyone is one can you?


------

BTW...Is this also a logical fallacy too?

Despite the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 finding that foreign governments supported the 9/11 terrorist suspects. (See Senator Bob Graham remarks)

Even though the 9/11 Commission states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." (p. 172)
 
Sorry for getting it all twisted.

I never said anything about this post proving 9/11 was an inside job. I have other evidence for that in other post. (Sorry can't post links because I'm a newbie or should that be noob??)

The running theme I've noticed through out the 9/11 Forums on here is those who do not believe the offical version of events are either, nuts, paranoid, conspiracy nuts et all kinds of names.

The point of my post was to show you that not everyone who doesn't believe the offical story are nut jobs, tin hat wearers, kool-aid drinker etc. Who spend all there time on the internet in a bunker.

People that are educated or are in a position of power/responsibilty have also question the offical version because there are bits which do not make sense or contradict each other.


I could say that when the people in here start calling people names like tin Hater wearers....They are usuing logical fallacy!! Because you cannot prove from sitting front of a PC that anyone is one can you?


------

BTW...Is this also a logical fallacy too?

Despite the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 finding that foreign governments supported the 9/11 terrorist suspects. (See Senator Bob Graham remarks)

Even though the 9/11 Commission states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." (p. 172)

I almost like this response, I don't understand it as it seems to violate most rules of the english language, but yhay's ok.
 
Paul Hellyer:
"I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something.

The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning.

The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide.

The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today."
Okey-dokey.
 
The point of my post was to show you that not everyone who doesn't believe the offical story are nut jobs, tin hat wearers, kool-aid drinker etc. Who spend all there time on the internet in a bunker.

People that are educated or are in a position of power/responsibilty have also question the offical version because there are bits which do not make sense or contradict each other.

Yes, but there's a big difference between thinking we haven't heard the whole story, and believing the whole LIHOP/MIHOP senario. Most of the reasonable people you've quoted don't believe that the government was actively involved in 9/11, they're concerned about the CYA cover-up of systemic problems that prevented the people responsible for protecting the US from doing their jobs. Any argument that uses these people to push any sort of "HOP" senario is inane at best, and actually fraudulent at worst.

I could say that when the people in here start calling people names like tin Hater wearers....They are usuing logical fallacy!! Because you cannot prove from sitting front of a PC that anyone is one can you?

"Prove", no. "Suspect with a preponderance of the evidence"? Absolutely! When someone starts going off about holographic planes, Star Wars Death Beams, or other nonsense, then yeah, tin hatter is a fair cop.

BTW...Is this also a logical fallacy too?

Despite the Joint House-Senate Select Intelligence Committee's 2002 finding that foreign governments supported the 9/11 terrorist suspects. (See Senator Bob Graham remarks)

Even though the 9/11 Commission states, "Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government -- or government official -- supplied any funding." (p. 172)

"Support" =/= "Funding". There's no contadiction here. A government could "support" someone by issuing a passport or visa, without actually funding them. "Support" includes funding, but it also includes a lot of other possible activities. They may be wrong, but they're not being illogical.
 
Last edited:
Didn't realise you had posted

The point of my post was to prove that not everyone who doesn't believe the offical version of events are whack-jobs etc. The point is too prove that people who do not believe the offical version of events are ordinary people who look at all the discrepencies that the offical story says.

1st thing is, I cannot prove that other peoples opinions are just that or whether they have been substansiated with proof. As you will be aware, its impossible for me because I do not know how they came to there conclusions.

----------------
Quote
Senator Mark Dayton
Yes, NORAD officials did lie about the probability of being able to intercept flight 93, and they should be held accountable for that. The problem is, NORAD had no chance to intercept that plane, and that wasn't their fault.

So NORAD lied, Why? Why has no one has been held accountable? NORAD had manage to intercept 60 odd planes before 9/11, so why & how did they fail. (See my other post in the Norman Mineta tesitmony as I go into that)

-------------------------
Major General Albert Stubblebine
Quote:
"The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

Idiocy. Why is that idiocy? This is one I cannot work out? Looking at the footage from the pentagon (when 1st obtain had the wrong date on) you see an object, but it's hard to determine if it was a plane. Yes I know people quoted saying they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, but then there are statements that say the opposite as well as the smell of Cordite too. All they have to do is release footage that a plane hit the pentagon and that would shut the conspiracy theorists right up? But still no footage??
-------------------------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

Quote:
"The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Idiocy. Why? A trained pilot who says that the manovuers were impossible. I would take the word of Russ Wittenberg than of someone who has never flew any of the planes unless you are a pilot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler

Quote:
Statement 9/19/06: "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists,

False. All the hijackers' names are on the flight manifests. Zeigler is mistaking these for the lists of victims. Further, on 9/13/01 the Boston Globe did publish the passenger lists, including the hijackers, for AA11 and UA175.


Can you provide a link because I have NEVER seen it?? Here is what I came up with.....

Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, “We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001.” (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) “And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.” [New York Observer, 2/11/2004]

However, Bonner appears to be at least somewhat incorrect: for two days after the attacks (see September 13, 2001-September 14, 2001), the FBI believes there are only 18 hijackers, and the original list contains some erroneous Arab-sounding names on the flight manifests, such as Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari. [CNN, 9/13/2001]

The funny thing is...Flight 77 has no arab names on the list!
www cnn com/SPECIALS/2001/trade center/victims/AA77 victims html (put the . in the spaces)

When you ask for this information under the FIOA, there names do not appear either??

www sierratimes com/03/07/02/article_tro htm
-----------------------------------

Quote:
BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive,

Early, confused reports were quickly corrected. Zeigler needs to catch up with information since October, 2001.

The stolen identites has never been corrected and is still true, however the hijackers being alive is not true. I'm from Engliand and remember watching an interview with one of the supposed hijackers whose Passpoer when missing years before.

---------------

As I stated, these names were not giving to prove or disprove what happened but too show you that it's not just crackpots who do not believe the offical story.
 
People that are educated or are in a position of power/responsibilty have also question the offical version because there are bits which do not make sense or contradict each other.

Then don't these persons have a legal (and moral) responsibility to do everything in their power to expose what they know? I don't see ANYONE in government, including our new Democratically controlled Congress, crying out for a new investigation. So are they just blowing smoke or negligent in their duties to a criminal level?

As for your comment that CTers aren't all creepy X-Files fans that live in their parent's basements, well ok, but it seems to me that the "Truthers movement" is gaining more "no planers" and "star wars beamers" everyday. If you're going to hang your hat with the CTers Stundie, I'm afraid that's who you're going to end up with.
 
I see evidence of incompetence, much like many predicted would occur in a Bush administration. But pretty much nothing to support a FAR-REACHING conspiracy. I also see a bit of ignorance on how the bureaucracy, intelligence and the military actually work. Anyone who thinks these mechanisms are efficient or infallible needs to do a little deep reading.

One quick thought about the military covering up mistakes. You might be too young to remember the $600 dollar ashtrays they put in jet fighters (nope pilots can't smoke), $300 hammers (Ace is the place 5.00 at the time), and $400 toilets seats that the pentagon thought were great deals until some nasty reporter pointed them out. Of course the military tried to cover up its incompetence, alll militaries do.
 
Last edited:
I know nothing of Paul Hellyer, but to dismiss this because he believes in UFO Coverups would be like dismissing evidence because he believe in Jesus.

Neither the exsistence of Jesus or UFO Coverups have been proven but if he said he believed in Jesus, would you judge him accordingly??

I would. Why should religious beliefs be exempt from being classified as woo? There's a fine line between dismissing a person's views because of a clear bias and an ad hominem attack. His belief in UFOs certainly doesn't help his credibility, but you're right, it should have no bearing on the quoted statement, which does not involve UFOs. However, Hellyer has also accused the American government, and George W. Bush, of plotting an intergalactic war, and of building a moon-base to track and/or ambush UFOs. To my mind, he has demonstrated a clear anti-American/anti-Bush bias, and a tenuous grasp on reality. This is more than enough to reduce the credibility of his statements on any topic.

Also, to address his actual comment, he justifies his belief in a conspiracy or coverup is because things happened "that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable." Well, yeah, that's true enough. An ordinary person would probably also find weather, tides, the orbits of Jupiter's myriad moons, and the events leading up to World War Two to be inexplicable. It doesn't mean that there aren't explanations for these things, or that the explanations provided are incorrect, only that an ordinary person does not generally understand them.

There's a difference between having the "courage and perstistence" to find the truth and the stubbornness and stupidity to not recognize when you already have it. Hellyer provides nothing here to support his belief that he doesn't already have the truth. An unsupported statement by a man known for his outlandish beliefs should be given the serious attention it deserves: none.
 
Incompetence....More than that I think!

I never said they were infallible.

Incompetence, well yes I could believe that but if I was in a job and I was incompetent. I would be held accountable and punished.

Yet not one single person has been made accountable for the failures which led to the death of 3000 American lives? Infact those people are still in their position and some got promoted.

To believe it was all down to incompetence would be believable if heads were rolling but they are not.

The 2 warnings Condi Rice received on 6th Aug 2001 and July 2001 (Depending if you believe George Tenet or not) The fact that Pakistan, Russian, Israel and German intelligence warned American Intel that attacks using planes were imminent, leads me to believe there was something more…much more. There are way too many coincidences on 9/11. If they had planned it any other day, 3000 people might still be alive.

This is just a very small spec of a much larger & bigger picture.
 

Back
Top Bottom