You need to add another link on this web site with separate sections titled: Fired, On-leave, Gagged, or Murdered, then list the names and their credentials!

I think he's real, but it seems a little careless. Associating his work information with the letter probably wasn't the best idea. He doesn't really seem to have any inside information either. Weird comments by Tommy Franks, an awareness of the chain of command for NORAD, and a quick glance to a top secret document describing a wargame similiar to 9/11. It seems that he's inflating his role and his desire for attention got him fired.

Can we initiate a discussion based on organizing a lawsuit aimed at an entity such as NIST that would show definitive contradiction between scientific fact and one or more of their findings?

This would bring a debate into a court of law where experts would be forced to testify/debate against other experts. Thus non-cooperation in a voluntary debate would would not be an option for the targeted parties.

This is a real world approach and would be a severe testing ground for the propagators on the troubling nonsense we are all faced with.

I think it would be important to identify limited arguments such as components of the so-called "pancake" collapse explanation that harm the study of structural building technology.

I think a narrow focus is important in such an endeavour.

Any ideas or comments on this suggestion would be appreciated.

Some good points in here, but then of course, some backhand slaps.

THAT RUMBLING YOU HEAR IS THE CRUMBLING OF THE EMPIRE

By Jenna Orkin

September 27th 2006, 2:13PM [PST] - This morning, September 25, the FTW blog received a comment that the video "9/11: Confronting the Evidence"* was on RAI, a major Italian television network, during prime time on Saturday night.** The show included an extensive interview lasting about ten minutes with Mike Ruppert. This report seems accurate since visits from Italy to www.wtceo.org, which was also featured on the tape, have skyrocketed.

Not only are "things moving under the carpet" as Mike is fond of saying, the walls of the edifice are cracking and those things are scurrying all over the place. The frantic moves on the part of the Bush administration to shore up the only levees that matter to them are as transparent to FTW readers as a case of, "Methinks they doth protest too much." Of course, as we all know, FTW readers are not the mainstream.

But the United States is La-la land; the rest of the world is getting it. Even New York City, which is known for its snooty attitude to the rest of the country, preferring to think of itself as "a small island off the coast of Europe," still believes itself to be the liberal bastion it was thirty years ago, its hometown paper, the venerable Times, a beacon of forward thinking. The gavel-pounding of old school liberals like Paul Krugman on the Op-Ed page fosters this image while in the pages that count - the News - there is a blackout on some key truths. Those of us who've worked on the environmental disaster of 9/11 from day one know this only too well. But that is subject for another story.

Left-leaning editorial pages are an ingenious ingredient in a right-wing mix, like the sweet tunes of the Pied Piper, leading the reader to lethal conclusions. Just as the mainstream media have not considered the war games on 9/11 (or even, for that matter, whatever happened to the anthrax investigation) to be news that's fit to print, they have taken years to acknowledge Peak Oil and then, only with a limited hang-out. How useful is it to tell everyone we have an oil crisis when in your next breath you tell them we can fix it with ethanol, hybrids and that good ol' American can-do spirit? And how useful is it when the information you withhold - the economic and social implications of that crisis - is the most critical?

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. One of the most strenuous arguments heard to the idea that the Bush administration perpetrated 9/11 is, "There would have had to be thousands of people keeping the secret."

This argument is based on several false assumptions, the first being that you would need thousands of people all knowing the big picture. But people, especially in government bureaucracies, have specific jobs. Only those at the top of the pyramid know the whole picture or even why they're doing what they're being asked to do.

The second false assumption is that carrying off such a scheme is impossible. But as pointed out by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker, "by the time the world learned of the existence of the Manhattan Project because of the horrific news from Hiroshima, the project employed 43,000 people at 37 facilities in 19 states and Canada...Another example would be the stealth bomber, until it was decided to unveil it. Also, in the Second World War, the Germans did not learn for several years that the British had invented radar and were using it."1

The reasons for disbelief in Bush involvement in 9/11 are not rational but emotional. Invariably, the people who argue most forcefully against the idea are those who have not read Crossing the Rubicon. One hears nonsensical arguments such as, "What about the hijackers?" as though Mike and other researchers were suggesting that Dick Cheney was piloting all four of the crashed planes.

But Europe and the rest of the world are not so invested in believing that the United States is honorable. Also they have reason to know better, many of them coming from the perspective of one who's been under our boot.

Unfortunately, being far away, they are also more easily misled about logistical matters, for instance by hoaxes such as those perpetrated by Thierry Meyssan soon after the attacks, that no plane hit the Pentagon. The Neo-Cons have been able to use this also as a weapon in their favor, for some Washington natives who witnessed a plane flying into the Pentagon thereafter wrote off all U.S. conspiracy allegations as crackpot.

Much discussion has taken place among 9/11 writers about certain well-intentioned websites and researchers who have been misled by hoaxes. Does their reputation suffer forever from guilt by association with an idea which was later shown to be false? Or is the spread of dissent in general a good thing because it makes people question the fundamental story as put forth by the Bush administration?

But enough of hoaxes. While the various missile and nuke theories are used to intrigue a number of people ("It looks like a porn site," my son observed - with disdain, I hasten to add - about one such website) the fact remains that the war games prompt crucial questions and present unassailable evidence of Bush administration involvement in the attacks. The war games are the Rosetta stone of 9/11. And every day the world is hearing more about them and every day more people are listening.

This is second-hand (not my interview), but from someone I know and trust. Judge for yourself the adequacy of Lauro Chavez's answers.

1. Why does his DD-214 list no foreign service, despite his claim to an 8 month tour in Afghanistan?

Answer: I got out 3 weeks after my return home from Afghanistan. I got out of the army using the Chapter 6-13 (early drop for higher education) which I misquoted as a chapter 13 – my fault. By doing this, I pretty much waved my service ribbons and awards. I did not care about that stuff at the time, I just wanted to get out.

2. Why does his DD-214 omit many ribbons that he should have automatically (not merit based requiring his commander to submit them) based on his service, including 1 NDSM, an NCO Professional Development ribbon, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and a NATO medal?

Answer: Again, same thing – by ducking out early, I gave up this stuff.

3. Why does his DD-214 list a 14 week Special Forces Q course, despite the fact that the course is considerably longer, and makes no mention of SFAS or Airborne training, both prerequisites, and does not list a Special Forces MOS?

Answer: This was done when I originally joined the Army. I went to basic training and then to the qualification course. It has since changed, but at the time, after the qual course, you then picked either air borne or air assault. I got hurt in the 2nd week of AB school. However, because the SFQC was "official" training, they had to list it on my 214.

4. Why, even though he claims expertise with explosives does he claim that thermite, an incendiary, is an explosive and a component of C-4?

Answer: I have to watch what I type I guess. I've used C4 in its Claymore Mine form. It does leave a funny smell behind. I was ranting in my letter and I never claimed to be an expert. Sorry.

5. Why does he suggest that Afghan soldiers could not have flown the hijacked planes, despite the fact that nobody has ever claimed they did?

Answer: This is just ridiculous, but I said that because Osama was in Afghanistan, and people were led to believe the TaliBan was from there. Look, I was just saying that the Afgans I saw looked like scrawny little guys with very little intelligence. So, I didn't believe they could fly planes.

6. Why does he claim to have spoken with a "good buddy" Lieutenent General, who was a former commander of the Army Corp of Engineers at CENTCOM in 2001, when the only 3 star assigned to CENTCOM at that time was Lieutenent General Michael P. DeLong, a Marine?

Answer: Wow, that was the deputy commanders name, DeLong. He was a pretty cool guy, looked like a bulldog ;o). Again, my good friend was a liaison there attached, therefore he probably would not be on any formal roster listing. This is detail I never went into because I did not think it mattered.

6. Why does he claim he flew in an uparmored C5 into Kabul on September 25th (or September 26th his story changes) 2001, when Kabul was securely in Taliban hands until it was liberated by the Northern Alliance on November 13th, 2001?

Answer: Again, I said I Deployed to Afghanistan. I did not mean that to be interpreted that I was going straight there. We hung out in Germany, Turkey, and Kazakhstan prior to coming into Kabul. And the Northern Alliance was aided by Special Ops – I know because I provided the secure comms back to the base for them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1114/p1s1-wosc.html

7. Why does he claim to have pulled "roving guard" on an oil pipeline in 2001-2002, despite the fact that this pipeline is still in the planning stages 5 years later?

Answer: I did guard pieces of the pipeline: I never said it was completed, but if you believe its not there, then buy a plane ticket.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-17-05.asp

8. Why does he repeatedly claim that he received a Chapter 13 separation discharge to enter school, when a Chapter 13 is a discharge for "unsatisfactory performance"?

Answer: I cleared this up earlier. This was due to my aging mind ;o)

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r635_200.pdf

9. What type of shoulder fired weapon causes could cause the type of damage seen at the Pentagon, as he mentioned in a radio interview this morning?

Answer: if you read, about the shoulder fired bunker buster you'll see the just recently "in public" stated it was fitted for infantry troops. It's a shoulder fired rocket, much like the AT4 – fire and forget. ….look it up.

10. Why does he repeatedly claim that Dick Cheney was appointed head of NORAD in 2001, when the commander of NORAD at that time was actually Air Force General Ralph Eberhart?

Answer: We were given a new Chain of Command chart like an org chart, showing the change…it was probably not made public till later.

Let me know what else you have for me

Lauro

I think it's pretty sad that we let a few anonymous posters trash this guy's reputation with scurrilous and unsubstantiated accusations and needless nitpicking about his initial letter to the editor. As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have the nerve to put your name on the posts then they should be ignored.

Peace.
Matt
matt@9eleven.info

Thank you GW for posting clarifications. I would like to add, in support of LC, that I have learned the following online. There IS such a thing as "top secret gamma" clearance as can be determined by looking at the document on the following webpage

http://www.slobodan-milisevic.org/news/house101096.htm

Other documentation on the web cites top secret gamma classification ("top secret gamma" army search on google)

To Alphonz, who expresses concern over LC's DD 214, but did not see that a request for a DD 215
had been made to fill in missing information, I like to say - You are the person who brought this story to our attention in the first place. You, more than anyone else, have a responsibility to get the facts straight
before launching an attack. The information on the 215 was right on the 214 for you to see. I found it, and I am not military. How is it you missed that, sir?

To the point how could LC not recall the name of the officer who said there was a stand down. Because,
as he himself has stated, there were 2,500 people at the base and he didn't know everyones name.

In another thread, some fool stated that the "Declination of Service DA - Form 4991-R" tells us all we need to know about LC, as though this was to his discredit somehow. Well, I checked that out as well,
and just as I had thought, surprise, surprise, again LC's story checks out. Apparently, one must initiate
action of obtaining an SRR (Service Remaining Requirement) to avoid a 4991-R. LC left the army early, so likely did not qualify for the SRR, or did not want to delay getting out of the service in order to qualify for the SRR. Individuals may CHOOSE to waver the SRR and this IN NO WAY is a discredit to their service record.

To those who wonder why LC lost his job today - it's because people on this very website got the name of the company LC worked for from a post and sent harassing letters packed with lies to his employer.
This is not a vetting process or a validation process, it's a vicious smear campaign. There's a HUGE
difference between stating "let's get this guy's info verified before we use it in our movement" and personally attacking and even sending letters out which cost him his job. This website now has the dubious distinction of being the website that attacked the first military whistleblower on the stand down order to come forward and made it less likely that others in the military would follow suit. Some has posted that his info is not important. Not important? It's personal testimony of the stand down order. It's very important. Congratulations neocon subversives. Valerie

CENTCOM worker comments on NORAD activities? CENTCOM has not a thing to do with NORAD. He is not capable of comment on the actions of NORAD on 9/11. He was watching TV on 9/11 at work with his CENTCOM buddies, not even connected! Check out how CENTCOM works.

I suspect he got fired not due to his views, but due to the fact you have to be dumb to have his views. Dumb people are first to go, except for the boss!

Fired, cause of stupidity!

believes 9/11 CT junk cause of stupidity!

simple logic, like Fetzer, this guy is tin foil clown looking for hat

thank heaven for dumb people, they are keeping my job warm

Well, the shills are out this morning I see. Is Chavez for real? We'll have to see. Does that change one iota the fact that 911 is a lie perpretrated by crimminals in our own government and others? No.

They're traitors and they'll be tried, convicted and executed for their crimes against humanity. As it should be.

Shill on, whores.