Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

General of all American Intelligence:


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#16    el midgetron

el midgetron

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,936 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the middle of the mitten

  • saturnalian brother

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:10 AM

Luvz "General Stubblebine" wub.gif (lol jk)

He is an interesting fellow though. Certianly not the sort of person who accepts things which are accepted. I can't recomend the BBC/Jon Ronson 3 part series "crazy rulers of the world" enough (soon to be a movie starring George Clooney btw). In the BBC series (beginning of the first part) Stubblebine discusses his attempts to "walk through walls". Sound crazy? Eh, maybe so, but the government sponsored nuttery that follows make Stubblebine's sincere intentions seem quite normal.

"be all you can be" <<<< The 1980's army recruitment slogan which was based on the ideas set forth by the "First Earth Battalion". A conceptual doctrine that inspired the government to enlist men to "stare at goats" (to death), melt the hearts of the enemy with music and baby lambs, and in Stubblebine's case, walk through walls. And this isn't some new age hang-over from the 60's and 70's, these ideas and practices have evolved and are mantained to this day.

Posted Image

"Feels good to be breaking the laws in America again" - Kenny Powers


#17    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,501 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:35 AM

I think its even more interesting when Ronsen speculates that the "goat Starring" team were probably low grade covers set up to show that the Military were researching this field but only in half hearted way which would ellicite little credability if revealed. He speculated that they really took it all as seriously as the Russians did and spent a lot of black budget in this area.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 08 July 2009 - 08:35 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#18    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:13 PM

Q24 on Jul 7 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

I believe Major General (retired) Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III is being perfectly sincere when he says he has seen no pictures of wing marks.  Evidence of the Pentagon event on 9/11 is certainly somewhat limited.  In this instance I believe that lack of evidence has led to the wrong conclusion.  The picture below is not widespread but made my mind up about the presence of an aircraft at the Pentagon: -

linked-image


Great pic, can you explain what you think is wrong with it?


#19    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,139 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:14 PM

phunk on Jul 8 2009, 04:13 PM, said:

Great pic, can you explain what you think is wrong with it?

I'm not sure he thinks anything is wrong with it.  IIRC, Q24 believes that an aircraft did strike the Pentagon.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#20    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:27 AM

frenat on Jul 8 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

I'm not sure he thinks anything is wrong with it.  IIRC, Q24 believes that an aircraft did strike the Pentagon.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the picture - it should be used more often in these discussions to show the wing impact marks.  Many people have not seen it and unfortunately this seems to be the evidence that General Stubblebine was missing.

The thing is the photograph (or one very similar) was used in the The Pentagon Building Performance Report so there really is no excuse.  All I could say is that the section describing the wing impact damage is very limited/not well highlighted and this particular study is not as well promoted or talked about as other official reports in the first place.

We can add the following points to the apparent wing impact damage: -

  • Over one hundred witnesses claim to have seen an airliner at the scene.

  • Controllers from North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Pentagon Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) and civilian air traffic control all believed they were tracking a plane on radar.

  • Airliner debris, although limited, was recovered, including landing gear, engine part and fuselage.

  • The large fireball captured on security camera footage matches those seen in the WTC impacts and is what would be expected of a large fuel tank, not a smaller impact or missile.

  • This one is logic from a conspiracy perspective rather than physical or witness evidence - if the plan requires aircraft then you use aircraft!  There is no reason to take the unnecessary risk of doing otherwise.

Taking all of the above into account, I think we have a plane.

Even within the Truth Movement it appears there is a minority promoting ‘no-plane’ theories.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth actually branched into separate groups because Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman and others did not want their work to be associated in part with Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood or (former Bush employee) Morgan Reynolds and their ‘no-plane’ theories.  Jim Hoffman in particular has criticized the ‘no-plane’ theory regarding the Pentagon, referring facetiously to “we conspiracy theorists”: -

“This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the official story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”

The are other alternative media sites that refute the ‘no-plane’ theory.  For instance, OilEmpire start with the headline, “Pentagon missile hoax: the "no Boeing" claims are not "9/11 truth" they discredit and distract from proven evidence of complicity”.  The WhatReallyHappened site concludes the issue with, “The Pentagon was hit by a plane, end of story.”  The WTC7.net, 911Research and 911Review sites all refute the ‘no-plane’ theories.

I will leave the final word with Jim Hoffman for people to think about: -

“The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists.”


Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#21    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Ntwadumela- He who greets with fire

  • Member
  • 12,367 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:in the depths of my mind

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:09 AM

The only problem I see with the pic is, there was a 7000 lbs rolls royce engine attached to it. Where is the impact marks from that?

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#22    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,501 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:26 PM

Q24 thanks for the injection of sanity and your perfect logic.


Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#23    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:29 PM

preacherman76 on Jul 9 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

The only problem I see with the pic is, there was a 7000 lbs rolls royce engine attached to it. Where is the impact marks from that?

linked-image

Imagine the aircraft facing the other way obviously.

Bear in mind that the aircraft was tilted with its right wing slighty up and impacted the facade at an angle.

Apologies for my terrible photo editing- scales are approximate.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#24    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:32 PM

Br Cornelius on Jul 9 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

Q24 thanks for the injection of sanity and your perfect logic.


Br Cornelius

Thank you for taking the time to look  original.gif

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#25    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2007

Posted 09 July 2009 - 01:45 PM

Raptor Witness on Jul 7 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

Why, after finding out that we were so blatantly lied to about WMD's in Iraq, would we swallow so easily the approved groundwork, necessary to get us there in the first place?



So first the government killed thousands to start the war, then they invented the WMDs and then they were to lazy to plant some WMDs, and were content with losing all sympathy and becoming the bad guys for the rest of the world instead?

Yeah, that certainly makes sense...


#26    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,501 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 02:54 PM

rambaldi on Jul 9 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

So first the government killed thousands to start the war, then they invented the WMDs and then they were to lazy to plant some WMDs, and were content with losing all sympathy and becoming the bad guys for the rest of the world instead?

Yeah, that certainly makes sense...


I think they are so far along in their overall planning that they couldn't give a fig for what anyone really thinks.
Br Cornelius


I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#27    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 July 2009 - 10:15 PM

Instead of all these over analyzing of photos, why cant one just ask United Airlines if they lost millions of $$$ worth of aircraft or not?


#28    muddyfrog

muddyfrog

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • A teacher cannot teach a student; on the contrary a student must learn from the teacher.
    -Me

Posted 11 July 2009 - 06:14 AM

as I have already said 100% there was an airplane that hit the pentagon end of story haha...

If any of you guys recognize my name you will know who  I usually side with, but in this case I have inside info that an airplane did in fact hit the pentagon.  

That is unless my Army buds are lacking big time...


-Muddy

Edited by muddyfrog, 11 July 2009 - 06:16 AM.

Posted Image

Now is like a flowing river. Do not hold on to the shore. The shore is crumbling. Push off into the middle and rejoice that others have made it with you.
-Native American quote paraphrased


#29    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 16 July 2009 - 02:10 AM

Q24 on Jul 7 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

I believe Major General (retired) Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III is being perfectly sincere when he says he has seen no pictures of wing marks.  Evidence of the Pentagon event on 9/11 is certainly somewhat limited.  In this instance I believe that lack of evidence has led to the wrong conclusion.  The picture below is not widespread but made my mind up about the presence of an aircraft at the Pentagon: -

linked-image


I see- draw a line on a picture with no evidence of a wing mark and presto, "evidence" of the wing is found? You'll forgive me if I'm more persuaded by the former head of all U.S. intelligence. I also found the following site very persuasive as well:
http://www.thepentacon.com/

They, in turn, are backed up by this site:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Edited by Scott G, 16 July 2009 - 02:20 AM.


#30    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 16 July 2009 - 02:37 AM

Uh, there is no such thing as "head of all US Intelligence"...there are many intel organizations, military and civilian, and many heads.

This General was an Army intel guy.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users