| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: ex USAF Fighter pilot goes public in emotional interview |
 |
|
(Got this from 9/11 Blogger but noticed that it hasn't been posted on here yet).
Lt Col. Guy Razer
This is a very interesting and powerfull interview because it demonstrates that people who 'wake up late' can get even more angry than the ones who initially suspected something about 9/11 years ago.
He also describes the process of overcoming his denial (not a river in egypt) he had to go through.
Audio link here:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_razer.mp3
9/11 Visibility page:
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=202198 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mark_e
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 155
Location: Ipswich
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sadly both links now not working |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both links working for me.
Just downloading the interview now.
Why not try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mark_e
Moderate Poster
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 155
Location: Ipswich
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| good advice, listening now, cheers FS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete J
Minor Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: Guy Razer |
|
|
There's an interesting thread on this over on the JREF forum. They are very skeptical about this Guy's identity - maybe we should be too.
However, someone on there apparently checked on www.military.com and did find a record of such a name.
There's also vitriol towards him . . . check this, for example from 'Big Les':
| Quote: |
I still can't believe this guy's name is actually Guy Razer. It's like being called "Jake Bullitt", or Ace Rimmer.
Anyway, just listening to this now. For those who don't want to waste their aural time, they start by talking about the advanced nature of jets in the US inventory in terms of long-distance targetting and engagement capability. The interviewer says he doesn't understand why it was a problem for there to be a delay in scrambling the jets, because they can target and hit aircraft at great distances Without addressing the actual assets available, minimum engagement and identification distances, weapons available etc etc.
Razer (!) says the thing that "got his attention" was WTC7. He says the evidence is "unequibacle...uh...unequivocal". Somewhat outside his area of expertise, wouldn't you say?
NIST apparently "doesn't answer anything adequately". Towers "exploded, did not fall down. That's obvious".
Then the BBC thing about them reporting the collapse before time. Blah blah. Thanks Rosie O'Donnell as an "awesome patriot" and a load of other brown-nosing BS follows. It's just a big club, really, isn't it? It's all who you know, who you namecheck, it's about belonging to something bigger than yourself, that you can pretend is raging against something even bigger and more powerful.
The host and Razer go on about their 9/11 awakening in born-again terms, then start a load of political/ideological bluster. GWB, Iraq, personal freedom, surveillance, all the usual paranoia. Sod all of significance so far.
"I have to be careful exactly what I say" Repeating emails are apparently evidence of DARPA interference. Foil hats on, boys!
"Truth on our side" "evidence is irrefutable". Loose Change arse-kissing session...
"We're actually researching in the dark". Ain't that the truth.
Suppression of evidence (Pentagon video footage).... disinfo responsible for their own cruddy research. Pilots for 9/11 truth, "was there a plane"...
"FDR data doesn't match what was provided in the report". "basically the airplane couldn't have hit the Pentagon". Razer has seen a terrain-following MISSILE in one of the videos! Not big enough hole, no parts, no bodies, airplanes don't vapourise. Advanced weapons... some sort of shaped charge with depleted uranium because of "how they cleaned it up" (suits, respirators, decon etc). "Non-melted computer" right next to it. God, this is depressing.
"I'm a demolitions expert. I'm a fighter weapons school instructor, I know about explosives". I think the expression goes "O rly?"
"Shock and awe". (interviewer: "We don't have to prove what happened".
If they reinvestigate "we've done all the hard work" already!
$2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon. Not heard that one before. The people responsible for investigating this were the ones who died, according to Razer. He cares about those people *cried crocodile tears*. Couldn't help but think of this:
Quote:
Hey, hey, hey, rainy face!
Hey, proud warrior.
Let the sun come out,
you big bad G.I. Joe.
You know, kitten, we all have
permission to make mistakes.
It's called “learning.”
Prize for guessing the movie. Anyway, back to the freakshow. Interviewer repeats that the whole 9/11 Truth remit is to pick holes in the official story, not to investigate it as such.
<interlude>
Dreadful bloody country-rock song in the middle. Cheesy gravel-voiced ad for some lame CT websites, D. R. Griffin, the 9/11 Truth "store" etc etc. *vomit*.
Asks for evidence of the missile, Razer backtracks saying he doesn't know it was a missile. Only part of building to be reinforced, line on the lawn (?). I don't know that. I do know a plane the size of 77 couldn't have done it. Lightposts; "boy that's a good one". "I don't have an answer, it's fluff, it's visual fluff".
On the low altitude approach of the airliner; "I had a hard time flying under 100ft". Not much call for that in the types he flew of course, although I've seen it done by many fast jet pilots. Hell, just search Youtube (low flying Harriers is a doozy). The point of course is that the terrorist pilot didn't actually have to worry about avoiding anything.
Explains UCMJ preventing military personnel from saying anything against one's government. Wells up again thinking about the F-15 pilots having to shoot down one of the airliners. Vectored in the wrong direction on purpose by Dic Cheney.
Seven exercises on that day, including one simulating an airliner flying into the Pentagon. The manual cover with WTC in crosshairs on the front.
Bush's deer-in-headlights moment unforgivable. Secret Service "standing down".
Procedure for aerial threat - "watch Pandora's Black Box video". "usually happens in minutes". Nearest base is Andrews, which is "within AMRAAM range". How, pray, would these fighters (F-16s) have identified and engaged their target? "Airborne in five minutes".
Some guff about four-star generals preventing pilots from doing their jobs.
Interviewer; "if you expose 9/11" other military personnel will begin to (implied) "wake up". Razer plugs "Fiasco" book. Advises us to "prepare for the worst, hope for the best". Becoming mainstream, "nobody questioning" 9/11 truth.
So, legit credentials notwithstanding, this guy has bought the same old debunked nonsense hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.
Sorry this is so patchy. I couldn't stand listening through twice! |
Great commentary from Big Les, but not very illuminating. It's the first time I've had a look around JREf forum and have found some of it quite interesting, but also alot of quite hypocritical stuff (e.g. 'critical thinking club'). Also, they seem to have their minds very made up about how WTC-7 fell down since anyone questioning this gets absolutely patronised into oblivion by all.
Why is this ? Have they already had a debate about it on their or am I just thick ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Guy Razer |
|
|
| Pete J wrote: | There's an interesting thread on this over on the JREF forum. They are very skeptical about this Guy's identity - maybe we should be too.
However, someone on there apparently checked on www.military.com and did find a record of such a name.
There's also vitriol towards him . . . check this, for example from 'Big Les':
| Quote: |
I still can't believe this guy's name is actually Guy Razer. It's like being called "Jake Bullitt", or Ace Rimmer.
Anyway, just listening to this now. For those who don't want to waste their aural time, they start by talking about the advanced nature of jets in the US inventory in terms of long-distance targetting and engagement capability. The interviewer says he doesn't understand why it was a problem for there to be a delay in scrambling the jets, because they can target and hit aircraft at great distances Without addressing the actual assets available, minimum engagement and identification distances, weapons available etc etc.
Razer (!) says the thing that "got his attention" was WTC7. He says the evidence is "unequibacle...uh...unequivocal". Somewhat outside his area of expertise, wouldn't you say?
NIST apparently "doesn't answer anything adequately". Towers "exploded, did not fall down. That's obvious".
Then the BBC thing about them reporting the collapse before time. Blah blah. Thanks Rosie O'Donnell as an "awesome patriot" and a load of other brown-nosing BS follows. It's just a big club, really, isn't it? It's all who you know, who you namecheck, it's about belonging to something bigger than yourself, that you can pretend is raging against something even bigger and more powerful.
The host and Razer go on about their 9/11 awakening in born-again terms, then start a load of political/ideological bluster. GWB, Iraq, personal freedom, surveillance, all the usual paranoia. Sod all of significance so far.
"I have to be careful exactly what I say" Repeating emails are apparently evidence of DARPA interference. Foil hats on, boys!
"Truth on our side" "evidence is irrefutable". Loose Change arse-kissing session...
"We're actually researching in the dark". Ain't that the truth.
Suppression of evidence (Pentagon video footage).... disinfo responsible for their own cruddy research. Pilots for 9/11 truth, "was there a plane"...
"FDR data doesn't match what was provided in the report". "basically the airplane couldn't have hit the Pentagon". Razer has seen a terrain-following MISSILE in one of the videos! Not big enough hole, no parts, no bodies, airplanes don't vapourise. Advanced weapons... some sort of shaped charge with depleted uranium because of "how they cleaned it up" (suits, respirators, decon etc). "Non-melted computer" right next to it. God, this is depressing.
"I'm a demolitions expert. I'm a fighter weapons school instructor, I know about explosives". I think the expression goes "O rly?"
"Shock and awe". (interviewer: "We don't have to prove what happened".
If they reinvestigate "we've done all the hard work" already!
$2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon. Not heard that one before. The people responsible for investigating this were the ones who died, according to Razer. He cares about those people *cried crocodile tears*. Couldn't help but think of this:
Quote:
Hey, hey, hey, rainy face!
Hey, proud warrior.
Let the sun come out,
you big bad G.I. Joe.
You know, kitten, we all have
permission to make mistakes.
It's called “learning.”
Prize for guessing the movie. Anyway, back to the freakshow. Interviewer repeats that the whole 9/11 Truth remit is to pick holes in the official story, not to investigate it as such.
<interlude>
Dreadful bloody country-rock song in the middle. Cheesy gravel-voiced ad for some lame CT websites, D. R. Griffin, the 9/11 Truth "store" etc etc. *vomit*.
Asks for evidence of the missile, Razer backtracks saying he doesn't know it was a missile. Only part of building to be reinforced, line on the lawn (?). I don't know that. I do know a plane the size of 77 couldn't have done it. Lightposts; "boy that's a good one". "I don't have an answer, it's fluff, it's visual fluff".
On the low altitude approach of the airliner; "I had a hard time flying under 100ft". Not much call for that in the types he flew of course, although I've seen it done by many fast jet pilots. Hell, just search Youtube (low flying Harriers is a doozy). The point of course is that the terrorist pilot didn't actually have to worry about avoiding anything.
Explains UCMJ preventing military personnel from saying anything against one's government. Wells up again thinking about the F-15 pilots having to shoot down one of the airliners. Vectored in the wrong direction on purpose by Dic Cheney.
Seven exercises on that day, including one simulating an airliner flying into the Pentagon. The manual cover with WTC in crosshairs on the front.
Bush's deer-in-headlights moment unforgivable. Secret Service "standing down".
Procedure for aerial threat - "watch Pandora's Black Box video". "usually happens in minutes". Nearest base is Andrews, which is "within AMRAAM range". How, pray, would these fighters (F-16s) have identified and engaged their target? "Airborne in five minutes".
Some guff about four-star generals preventing pilots from doing their jobs.
Interviewer; "if you expose 9/11" other military personnel will begin to (implied) "wake up". Razer plugs "Fiasco" book. Advises us to "prepare for the worst, hope for the best". Becoming mainstream, "nobody questioning" 9/11 truth.
So, legit credentials notwithstanding, this guy has bought the same old debunked nonsense hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.
Sorry this is so patchy. I couldn't stand listening through twice! |
Great commentary from Big Les, but not very illuminating. It's the first time I've had a look around JREf forum and have found some of it quite interesting, but also alot of quite hypocritical stuff (e.g. 'critical thinking club'). Also, they seem to have their minds very made up about how WTC-7 fell down since anyone questioning this gets absolutely patronised into oblivion by all.
Why is this ? Have they already had a debate about it on their or am I just thick ? |
as far as i can tell alot of jref posters start of from a point of view that it cannot be true regardless of evidance. they start of by discrediting the person making the claim to make them seem untrustworthy a liar etc...
then they will go through each point listing as many reasons as possible as to why you should not believe it sometimes without knowing if their reasons are valid or true.
they are just debunkers and would debunk anything regardless of how true it is if it suggests the one thing they cannot stand to hear that is "9/11 was an inside job" or "we were lied to about 9/11 it didnt happen how we were told a new investigastion is needed"
so where building 7 is concered to them they will always cling to the most unlikely explaination so they dont have to admit any foul play in the overall event.
to me they are the same as a full on out and out conspiracy theorists except they promote the opposite to the usual full on wacky conspiracys theorists.
my advice is to not let their comments make up your mind or anyones on here or anywhere, you have your own mind to come to your own conclusions and that is the best thing to rely on IMO.
you can be a conspiracy theorists and a fantasist whatever you believe, its what the evidence points to that matters. somebody having no valid reason to say something isnt true is no differant to someone who has no valid reason to say something is true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
