US Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III say 911 is build on lies

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I doubt they would allow someone who is "a few fries short of a happymeal" to become a Major General in the United States Army.

You must have forgotten who was president for the past 8 years. You should write to e General. See if he still spends time staring at goats and walking through walls.

reply to post by accuroman


I found some more interesting info on Stubblebine. Please read the article as it explains well-funded criminals attacking Natural News and Natural Solutions Foundation operated by Dr. Rima Labow and Maj. Gen. Stubblebine. The article reveals details of distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) website attacks, database hacking attempts, personal and professional reputation internet smear campaigns and impersonation attempts, among other tactics.

The Natural Solutions Foundation attends numerous Codex meetings, lobbies for health and health freedom and reports on them extensively. Her articles, interviews, blogs and emails are widely read by natural health advocates and supporters around the world.

Neither Dr. Laibow nor General Stubblebine receives any salaries or royalties from their health advocacy work or the sales generated by their virtual store, Organics4U, at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org/store

Dr. Laibow and General Stubblebine briefed the President of India in an extended private session, was the featured speaker at an Indian government meeting for an organization representing 950,000 Indian farmers, addressed the assembled Health Ministers of eastern, southern and central African nations and has met with dozens of decision makers in their own countries in Asia and Africa.

I've read that these two are disinfo agents regarding Codex Alimentarius. they claim to be on our side against Codex so I'm confused about these two people and their claims.

Anybody with any common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of physics only has to watch the footage of the way the towers collapsed that day, and realize that there is NO WAY that two airplanes exploding into two sky scrapers could make 3 buildings fall straight down into their own footprint.

I could say a lot more, but I won't. Because it took me quite a few years to come to that conclusion, for reasons I won't go into here.

But all you really have to do is watch the footage of the buildings falling down, and you realize....no way were planes crashing into the buildings responsible for that. No way.

reply to post by titorite


A window specially designed to withstand an explosion......or did you not know that those were the types of windows installed there?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by titorite

 

A window specially designed to withstand an explosion......or did you not know that those were the types of windows installed there?

I would ask if your joking but I know your not. Sooooo all those other windows where less than explosion proof? It does not matter here because I was more interested in the kinetic force the impact. The photo showed the window two feet from the wing tip. A plane traveling at 500 miles per hour and that window and the one above it survive...?

I could see some of those windows surviving an explosion. But not an impact at 500+miles an hour two feet from it.

Originally posted by CameronFox
I was a truther several years ago. That is how I got here.

I've read your posts since you had arrived here at ATS and I don't recall you being a 'truther' at all, quite the opposite in fact. Could you provide a link to any posts or threads of yours which would confirm that because as far as I've read, you've always been the same here... disruptive at best.

"Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny."
Apparently that should read, "Due to 9-11 likely being a legitimate conspiracy, truthers are fair game for insults here" or something because it definately seems like you and your ilk are held to lower standards here lately. If I were to post some of the stuff you get away with, I'd get a warning. What gives?

Originally posted by twitchy

I was a truther several years ago. That is how I got here.

I've read your posts since you had arrived here at ATS and I don't recall you being a 'truther' at all, quite the opposite in fact. Could you provide a link to any posts or threads of yours which would confirm that because as far as I've read, you've always been the same here... disruptive at best.

Did I say I posted as a truther? Perhaps you should read my post a little more clearly twitch.

It is nice to know you read everything I post. Thanks

reply to post by dino1989


Nope. Just one picture, found in less than a minute searching that shows the right wing impact area at the Pentagon.

reply to post by titorite

Sooooo all those other windows where less than explosion proof? It does not matter here because I was more interested in the kinetic force the impact. The photo showed the window two feet from the wing tip. A plane traveling at 500 miles per hour and that window and the one above it survive...?

And if you look at it, the window did not survive unscathed. In addition, the design of the building shields the window from a direct impact.

SOmeone needs to write this guy a letter,


General StubbleBine III of the US american revolutionary army of 2010, anyone?

He'll be the next George Washington

Originally posted by Classified Info
Straight from Wikipedia I see, word for word. But you left out the part how he believes human beings can walk through walls.

this is sadly, very very true.

Google Video Link

6:30
this is actually an extremely interesting talk if you aren't familiar with physics, psychology and evolutionary biology. I highly recommend watching the whole thing.

lets not forget he was not in charge even remotely near the time of 9/11
I think I should also point out that my father was in Washington on business on 9/11, in a meeting literally across the river from the Pentagon. We obviously panicked when we heard the news. When we got in touch with him he mentioned he *saw the plane hit the pentagon*.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]

I love this video. This in my opinion is damning evidence that Bush is a liar at the very least but may have had prior knowledge of the attack.

www.youtube.com...

Sorry if this has already been posted. It backs up Major General Stubblebine' theory. The video shows the lack of fire damage from a 'Jet full of fuel.' and ofcourse the lack of damage from the 757's wings (which also, is where most of the fuel is stored in an airliner) on the building. The Building Damage shares No resemblance to the World Trade Center.

Nathan

reply to post by CameronFox


You seem to only use character assassination for debunking.

Just wondering if you had any science behind what you are saying. After all the guy was head of army intelligence for 3 years. I think maybe that snubs chief armchair debunker and you have a little bit of hombre verdi.

Originally posted by Nathan9197
The video shows the lack of fire damage from a 'Jet full of fuel.' and ofcourse the lack of damage from the 757's wings (which also, is where most of the fuel is stored in an airliner) on the building.
Nathan

When will Troothers start learning to research something before posting absolute idiocy that displays their complete and total lack of intellectual rigor??

A 757 wing tank hold 2,170 gallons of fuel. With 2 wings, that is 4,340 gallons.

The center fuel tank in teh fuselage holds 6,900 gallons.

So, "most of the fuel" on an airliner, specifically a 757, is NOT in the wings but in the center fuel tank.

Faster, please!

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by Nathan9197
The video shows the lack of fire damage from a 'Jet full of fuel.' and ofcourse the lack of damage from the 757's wings (which also, is where most of the fuel is stored in an airliner) on the building.
Nathan

When will Troothers start learning to research something before posting absolute idiocy that displays their complete and total lack of intellectual rigor??

A 757 wing tank hold 2,170 gallons of fuel. With 2 wings, that is 4,340 gallons.

The center fuel tank in teh fuselage holds 6,900 gallons.

So, "most of the fuel" on an airliner, specifically a 757, is NOT in the wings but in the center fuel tank.

Faster, please!

When will OS'ers learn that when you debunk something to actually debunk and not debate semantics only.

So more than 50% of the fuel was not in the wings. They still did not leave marks, the 4000+ gallons of fuel did not burn the face of the pentagon or leave any sign of existence, and you still don't have evidence that a jetliner hit there.

So far, we've seen insults and straw men to try to "debunk" this. Aren't these tactics getting a little old and transparent?

Funny how no-one's attacked the character of the Danish scientist... yet.

And anyone who's actually seen the Jon Ronson documentary "The Man Who Stared At Goats" will know that even Jon Ronson, who went in as a sceptic, had that scepticism severely shaken..

And to whoever posted the Dawkins video - I simply won't watch that pathetic little man. He's an ideologue, not a scientist. His opinion is worthless.

I am not a Christian, I don't believe in inteligennt desine, but equally I'm not remotely convinced by Darwinism either. Those who push it too hard come across as just as swivel-eyed as that poor Senator woman who thinks Arizona is 6000 years old. And evolutionary biology... it's full of untestable hypotheses. They're just making it up. It's pseudo-science, but because it fits with the current ideological framework, people get away with it.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by rich23]

reply to post by trebor451


Except they do not load them full do they? Just enough to reach their destination plus a little insurance.

And they burn fuel too don't they?

Distance from Dulles to LAX is 2,294 statute miles.
Maximum fuel load 757-200 is 3110 statute miles.
And auxiliary belly tanks go in the center tank.

So they fill the wing tanks first and they fill the belly tanks less and they burn the fuel out of the center tank first. So you are wrong again trebor.

The wing tanks would hold more fuel if Flight 77 was the actual plane which took off from Dulles and if Flight 77 was the actual plane which flew to Ohio and if Flight 77 was the actual plane which flew to the Pentagon.

But we all know that the actual plane which flew Over the Naval Annex was NOT Flight 77 don't we trebor?

There are several high ranking officials whom question the OS.....

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans
Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 by Alan Miller.

Source....

patriotsquestion911.com...

It`s not exactly rocket science picking out the fundamentally flawed evidence on offer from that fateful day. Four planes bending the laws of physics as two managed to bring down 3 buildings, another penetrated several metres of reinforced concrete, whilst another managed to completely bury itself.

Fireman openly stating that it would take two lines to contain the fires, that somehow managed to generate enough heat to weaken tempered steel, and ofc damage tower 7 enough to make it collapse.

The *Bin Laden* video showing him (amongst other errors) writing with the incorrect hand.

Irregular stock market activities.

Traces of Thermite.

None OS conforming eye witness accounts, that differ immensely from the heavily media censured selective ones, painting a completely different picture on what happened to the twin towers, including explosions and missiles.

NIST`s denial of molten steel and free fall collapse back tracking, to name but two of their heavily contradictive detailed report.

Hostages managing to keep connected to their respective loved ones, for 20 minutes plus on mobile phones whilst flying in excess of 9000 feet, a feat deemed nigh on impossible at the time by mobile phone experts.

One of, if not the most heavily secure via CCTV`s security buildings in the whole world, and yet not one of the many videos confiscated by the FBI show a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Gross incompetence from National Security if we are to believe the OS.

Buildings designed and constructed to withstand fully loaded planes hitting them, if again, we are to believe the OS, then why have the Engineers that designed these not been brought to Justice to face charges of Gross incompetence resulting in the loss of lives?.

The many accusations aimed at the officials accused of cover ups etc are surely tantamount to Libel and Slander, why haven`t there been any respective law suits regarding this?.

And so much more.

Seriously, why does this come as a shock that those whom have 1st hand experience of National Security are starting to speak out?.

If there was profit to be made out of it, the USA government would openly declare war on peace.