Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ExpandMyMind

General of all American Intelligence:

433 posts in this topic

is this guy reliable? who is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, he was. Enough to even bring a bit of sorely needed credibility to the field of parapsychology research. Unfortunately, he went to far through the fringe, and became just another pundit for the power of vitamins, aliens, conspiracies, and ghosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we know why certain retirement age should be imposed specially in our Armed Forces.

I say the Supreme Court should have a retirement age as well so we dont have any worn out dinosaurs making decision vital to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this man's belief's. He makes some very sobering points.

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?

Once a capitalist empire reaches a certain pinnacle, desperate measures may be undertaken to try and prop it up, delaying the final phase of its collapse.

Avoiding the catastrophic result is an argument for the means, and when you can't tell the people that war is necessary at a certain point in the generation cycle, you simply make something up. The larger the lie, the easier it is to propagate.

I don't agree with everything this man says, but I know a good argument when I hear one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this man's belief's. He makes some very sobering points.

The question wasn't whether he was right or not. It was whether he was reliable.

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?

Because not all of us went there because we believed that WMD were involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is this guy reliable? who is he?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was once told by a military man, a man whom I believe to be truthful, that the U.S. army needs a war at least once a generation, in order to have seasoned officers capable of training the next batch of soldiers. This is the way of the world. It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. After all, true freedom is not cheap nor easily obtained, and is very rare in history.

The need for a well trained army becomes even more crucial at the end of capitalist boom cycle.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry. He says he never saw a plane that didn't have two wings and I never heard of a missile that had an airline flight number, an airport departure time, and 64 verifiable passengers and crew members. Two cell phone calls were made by that plane describing the hijacking and what was taking place, one by a flight attendant and one by a female passenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was once told by a military man, a man whom I believe to be truthful, that the U.S. army needs a war at least once a generation, in order to have seasoned officers capable of training the next batch of soldiers. This is the way of the world. It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong. After all, true freedom is not cheap nor easily obtained, and is very rare in history.

The need for a well trained army becomes even more crucial at the end of capitalist boom cycle.

Then please stop fighing other countries and have the party at home. USA military can kill each other in a forgotten nevada desert area if that's what they need to get experience. Going outside and fighting in another country makes those people there angry, and then "terrorism" happens, you know....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is 100% right as there are photos of what hit the pentagon that still aren't released until they can photoshop a airplane into them.

WTC 7 destroyed by fire?? BS! I've seen bigger fires in a doll house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a plane that hit the pentagon. I know there was. I was talking to one of my Army buddies, and we got on the topic of how we each got out of the Army. We started talking about our clearances and things that we can't talk about with other people. We talked about the evolution of the fighting in Iraq and all that, but then he started talking about being at the Pentagon.

His MOS was MP.

He was put on guard duty of the PLANE that hit the pentagon.

He is absolutely sure that it was in fact a plane.

I am one of those people who think this was an inside job.

But I don't think cruise missiles were involved.

-Muddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what can we say here. We can call this guy old and senile and takes to notions of grandeur over reality or we can say WTF is the U.S. doing giving people like this such important positions as his intelligence gathering background. Both sides of the coin are bad in this case and I will have to say this guy would know more than any of us here on U.M. or do we have military personal on U.M. with these same qualifications? Not the old senile ones lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he is just looking for a little fame before he kicks the bucket? On the other hand, maybe he is just doing a little gorilla advertising for a book that he is writing or something.

I still wonder why it's so easy for some to believe all kinds of wild schemes concerning 9/11 but, so hard for that some group of religious extremists crashed a few planes into a handful of buildings?

Not to pick a flame war or nothing but, has anyone else ever noticed that the same ones that defend the radical islamics are often the ones that condemn X-tianity as being just as extremist? They don't have any problem placing outragous stories at the feet of the X-tians but, will deny anything of the same caliber when it's aimed at muslims.

Just one of the curious little factoids that I've noticed over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then please stop fighing other countries and have the party at home. USA military can kill each other in a forgotten nevada desert area if that's what they need to get experience. Going outside and fighting in another country makes those people there angry, and then "terrorism" happens, you know....

I guess you have a point, but I make no judgment here, beyond refusing to believe most of the bs we were fed by the False Prophet(electronic media.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This guy is 100% right as there are photos of what hit the pentagon that still aren't released until they can photoshop a airplane into them.

WTC 7 destroyed by fire?? BS! I've seen bigger fires in a doll house

Then United Airlines and their Insurance company are in cahoots as well, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luvz "General Stubblebine" :wub: (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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24 thanks for the injection of sanity and your perfect logic.

Br Cornelius

Thank you for taking the time to look :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.