Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[Sabretooth]

The OCT has an obvious problem. All people have an instinctive desire to live, even "devout" Muslims like Hani Hanjur and lap dance aficionado Muhammed Atta. How could Osama be sure they would not steer the plane away from their assigned buildings at the last moment? Or miss the building by human error?

Well, since we've had two suicide plane crashes in the US since 9/11, the idea that a relatively small group of religious crazies that are promised eternal martyrdom doing the job is not so far-fetched, is it now?

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-06/us/tampa.crash_1_plane-charles-j-bishop-crash?_s=PM:US

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/texas-man-flies-plane-irs-building-9881675

I'm not saying this theory is the way it happened. Just that it could have happened this way, and we need to investigate it. Detectives do this every day, establishing motive and opportunity.

Pssst....CSI and NCIS aren't real...they're fiction.

Maybe if you review the entire video, you'd realize how wrong you "theory" is.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Where are the holes where the 2 engines hit the Pentagon?

Again, misrepresenting the facts. We see a large hole corresponding to the fuselage impact, two smaller holes corresponding to the engine impacts

Just a quick response on your most glaring misrepresentation: In case you haven't noticed, there is quite a huge controversy precisely because the two holes that would be caused by engine impacts are NOT found. You're just saying there are holes for the engines, without any proof. General Albert Stubblebine, a photo analysis expert, says "the plane does not fit in that hole". Main stream news reporters commented on the lack of engines holes. If you have found them, when no one else has been able to identify them, then that is major 9/11 news. Please upload a photo, with a circle showing where you have discovered the engines hit the Pentagon wall.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Appeal to Non-Authority is a fallacy, not to an Authority

I always love truther appeals to authority. You left out RETIRED...

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority. It is a misnomer. A "Fallacious Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is, citing someone who "is not a legitimate authority on the subject."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Leaving off the qualifiers "fallacious" or "irrelevant" as a short-hand slang abbreviation, Appeal to Authority, totally misstates the definition. Obviously, if scientific papers could not cite any authorities, then there would be no references. News reporters often interview authorities on a topic. Lawyers bring Expert Witnesses in to Courts of Law and the Judges and opposing attorneys acknowledge this is proper procedure to get to the truth.

Only on JREF, not in scientific literature, not in news, not in Courts, do you find people rebutting with "Aha! Appeal to Authority!"

Can you imagine the strange look a Judge would give an attorney who tried that as an objection? The attorney would only be proper in questioning the credentials or relevance of the authority, not the use of an authority in itself.

Can you imagine a PhD Review Panel saying to a candidate: "Sorry, you have some references to authorities in your dissertation."

There is nothing wrong with citing a person who is truly an authority in the field being discussed. Do that all you want. More the better, as long as they are qualified.

We were talking about the size of a jet hole in a Pentagon photo. General Stubblebine was head of an Army division to analyze photos. "I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. That was my job....The plane does not fit in that hole." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew

The plane was too big for the hole. But explosives make a big plane into smaller fragments.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

In other words you aren't reading your own source too well. Gage can be an architect and it would still be a fallacious appeal to authority to say he is right because he's an architect. What makes somebody qualified to speak on the subject of their field is their ability to support whatever they say with proven background, something which your group never does. As an example Gage's 20 years as an architect don't excuse his inability to talk about buildings as having different construction types that need to be treated differently in each case. First year college students can do this better than him; non-architects can do it better than him. And this applies to every authority, not just Gage whom I cited as an example,.

There is nothing wrong with citing a person who is an authority in his field.

Only if the authority show competence and knowledge demonstrating his qualifications. Job titles and claiming they do "x" isn't enough. They need to explain the merits of what they're claiming, period.

 

[Sabretooth]

Just a quick response on your most glaring misrepresentation: In case you haven't noticed, there is quite a huge controversy precisely because the two holes that would be caused by engine impacts are NOT found. You're just saying there are holes for the engines, without any proof. General Albert Stubblebine, a photo analysis expert, says "the plane does not fit in that hole". Main stream news reporters commented on the lack of engines holes. If you have found them, when no one else has been able to identify them, then that is major 9/11 news. Please upload a photo, with a circle showing where you have discovered the engines hit the Pentagon wall.

Yeah...Hi...2002?...this is 2011 calling....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100621

 

[TruthersLie]

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority. It is a misnomer. An "Fallacious Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is, citing someone who "is not a legitimate authority on the subject."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Leaving off the qualifiers "fallacious" or "irrelevant" as a short-hand slang abbreviation for Appeal to Authority, totally misstates the definition. Obviously, if scientific papers could not cite any authorities, then there would be no references. Only on JREF, not in scientific literature, do you read people rebutting with "Aha! Appeal to Authority!"

There is nothing wrong with citing a person who is an authority in his field. General Stubblebine was head of an Army division to analyze photos. "I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. That was my job." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew


No he doesn't. That is just a slanderous false accusation. Again, something you find on JREF, but not scientific literature.

We are talking, not about a Private, or a Colonel, but a MAJOR GENERAL. He didn't get so high up, higher than any of us did, in a position crucial to National Security, in a very strict, systematic, and competitive environment, without being well respected for his capabilities and intelligence.

We are talking about a man who thought his group of people being trained were JEDI warriors. The literally thoguht he could KILL a goat by staring at it hard enough.

do you know the book/movie the men who stared at goats? it is about Stubblebine. You might just want to read up on the man. He got up to a Major General and went BAT **** CRAZY in the process. It isn't SLANDER (what you have said about the SEC, the FBI and other investigative agencies of the US involved in determining what happened on 9/11 is SLANDER).

But with your research skills you obviously missed this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
and this
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B7Q6WNDDR96F

Penman, Danny (October 23, 2009). "Can you kill a goat by staring into its eyes?". Daily Mail. Retrieved November 11, 2009.

But with research like that no wonder you think that there are "missing fbi tapes" and there aer 1400+ architects and engineers on that petition.

 

[TruthersLie]

Just a quick response on your most glaring misrepresentation: In case you haven't noticed, there is quite a huge controversy precisely because the two holes that would be caused by engine impacts are NOT found. You're just saying there are holes for the engines, without any proof. General Albert Stubblebine, a photo analysis expert, says "the plane does not fit in that hole". Main stream news reporters commented on the lack of engines holes. If you have found them, when no one else has been able to identify them, then that is major 9/11 news. Please upload a photo, with a circle showing where you have discovered the engines hit the Pentagon wall.

Ah... yes the idea that there should be cartoon physics and a full outline of the aircraft.

woo hoo...
and you even quote bat **** crazy jedi knight who thinks he could walk through walls.... yuppers.

How about you stay on one topic until it has been researched fully and then you move onto the next one.
how is that coming with the "missing 85 tapes," the "missing 2.3 trillion," the put orders and the rest of yoru baseless slanderous claims?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just a quick response on your most glaring misrepresentation: In case you haven't noticed, there is quite a huge controversy precisely because the two holes that would be caused by engine impacts are NOT found. You're just saying there are holes for the engines, without any proof.

Look at the photos of the impact zone that ElMundoHummus posted. There are numerous holes in the ground floor wall. Pick two at the right spacing, and there are your engine entry holes.

General Albert Stubblebine, a photo analysis expert, says "the plane does not fit in that hole".

Stubblebine may be a photo analysis expert, but he is also almost certainly insane, in that he believes that it is possible to walk through walls and kill goats by staring at them.

Main stream news reporters commented on the lack of engines holes.

Let's see your evidence for this. Specifically, I want to see accounts from more than one reporter (you used the plural) based on observation of the impact site before the collapse (because, of course, the section hit by the engines subsequently collapsed, obscuring any holes from where the engines hit).

Let me also point out to you that the regulars here are very knowledgeable about the details of 9/11, and repeating the usual lies won't convince any of us of anything. We already know that they're lies.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority. It is a misnomer. An "Fallacious Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is, citing someone who "is not a legitimate authority on the subject."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Only in informal logic. Formally, the appeal to authority is always a fallacy. And, of course, appeal to authority does not overrule appeal to facts. If a qualified structural engineer, for example, claims that WTC1 and WTC2 fell at gravitational acceleration, this does not override the factual statement that they in fact fell at an acceleration close to 2/3 of gravitational acceleration. Similarly, if any authority claims that the only hole in the outer Pentagon wall was perfectly circular and 12 feet in diameter, whatever his qualifications, this does not override the factual statement, backed by photographic evidence, that the outside wall of the Pentagon suffered extensive damage over a width of around 90 feet, closely corresponding to the width of the heaviest components (the full fuel tanks) in the wings of a Boeing 757.

Short answer: Qualifications don't make lies true.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah...Hi...2002?...this is 2011 calling....

While you're on the line, can you warn them about Haiti and the Japanese tsunami?

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

The theory of a plane with explosives in the baggage compartment, remote controlled, exploding just prior to hitting the wall, with passengers and crew knocked out, perhaps with chloroform gas, would explain their sadly becoming DNA samples.

Nonsense, Many eyewitnesses describe flight 77 entering the pentagon building before the fireball

The plane explosion scattered airliner debris all over the lawn, in a wide pattern, even on to Route 395. This corroborates the theory. If the plane exploded inside the Pentagon, debris would tend to shoot out mainly in the direction of the hole.

More blatant ignorance. Never played pool have you? When flight 77 hit the face of the pentagon, it did so at an angle, it is expected that some aircraft debris would be deflected north of the entry hole. Which is exactly what was seen.

The first of the only 5 photo frames released (if we can believe a photo that has "Sep. 12" instead of Sep. 11) shows a huge flame going upwards and outwards in all directions. If the plane exploded inside the Pentagon, we would expect to see a flame shooting mostly out the hole.

Much of the fuel was in the wings, Cant have it both ways sport (small hole conspiracy theory) The wings opened up and spilled most of the fuel outside the face of the pentagon. The fireball is exactly what would be expected, And this exterior fireball scenario was repeated twice in New York earlier that day,

We observe a curiously small hole, with no distinct wing, engine, or tail marks. We don't see big sections, as with other crashes. This is hardly excellent agreement. The exploding plane theory explains these anomalies perfectly. Explosives can make a big plane into a small, wingless, tail-less, engine-less plane.

the yellow highlight contradicts your fireball theory above, Could you please get your head out of your ass at least for the duration of a single post?

The physical evidence, and many credible eye witness testimonies, point to a plane hitting the Pentagon wall. However, it was going so fast the human eye could not detect that it exploded a fraction of a second before hitting.
Explosives would also explain the problems with the Flight Data Recorder (FDR).

Yes the human eye certainly could, Had you read the witness testimony you would know that.

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building. It was here

The flight data recorder? that was in the tail?

The OCT has an obvious problem. All people have an instinctive desire to live, even "devout" Muslims like Hani Hanjur and lap dance aficionado Muhammed Atta. How could Osama be sure they would not steer the plane away from their assigned buildings at the last moment? Or miss the building by human error?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2010.htm

But a remote controlled drone aircraft has deadly accuracy, and no fear of death. Who has access to drones, and could program them?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154dafdf441a9ca.jpg

No one saw "drones" that day.

 

[A W Smith]

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority. It is a misnomer. A "Fallacious Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is, citing someone who "is not a legitimate authority on the subject."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Leaving off the qualifiers "fallacious" or "irrelevant" as a short-hand slang abbreviation for Appeal to Authority, totally misstates the definition. Obviously, if scientific papers could not cite any authorities, then there would be no references. News reporters often interview authorities on a topic. Lawyers bring Expert Witnesses in to Courts of Law. Think about it. Only on JREF, not in scientific literature, do you read people rebutting with "Aha! Appeal to Authority!"

There is nothing wrong with citing a person who is truly an authority in his field. Do that all you want. General Stubblebine was head of an Army division to analyze photos. "I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. That was my job." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9CNToaP2Ew

Nope, you are wrong. There is the fallacy of Appeal to Authority
"Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory." (But a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his statement in some specific context. And so on.) To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote. It's more convincing if the quote contains context, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from.



and the fallacy of Appeal to False Authority
a variation on Appeal To Authority, but the Authority is outside his area of expertise.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Quote:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
In other words you aren't reading your own source too well.

The fallacy is not just in the form. You left off the important next sentence:
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

More details at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to speak on his analysis of photos, his job for years.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Nonsense, Many eyewitnesses describe flight 77 entering the pentagon building before the fireball

Remember we are talking about something that happened in a split second. Also, the first of the 5 frames we got from the Pentagon show the fireball. Why is there is no photo of a plane partially in the Pentagon?

Cameras catch "photo finishes" in races, that the human eye cannot. That is why they are often used in the Olympics and other sports events.

When flight 77 hit the face of the pentagon, it did so at an angle, it is expected that some aircraft debris would be deflected north of the entry hole.

At a near 45 degree angle, much more of the plane should have been found outside, as it was deflected and bounced off. We didn't find that.

Much of the fuel was in the wings, Cant have it both ways sport (small hole conspiracy theory) The wings opened up and spilled most of the fuel outside the face of the pentagon.

Army Spc. April Gallop was in the Pentagon, went out the hole, and reported no such spillage of jet fuel.

The fireball is exactly what would be expected,

Yes, in both the Official Theory, and the Explosive Plane Theory

Yes the human eye certainly could,

No, it happens to fast for anyone to distinguish such details.

Had you read the witness testimony you would know that.

False assumption. I've read over 100. Some, like confirmed BS'er Steve Stoti, they saw it "like it was in slow motion." Right. I even went personally to check his balcony view, after he moved out, and it was being shown to tenants. It was a mile away from the Pentagon, mostly obscured by buildings.

The flight data recorder? that was in the tail?

Why is it that on 9/11 the FDRs were not recovered as they have been on every other crash, even from the bottom of an ocean?

No one saw "drones" that day.

If it was a drone, painted to look like Flight 77, no one could tell the difference. If Flight 77 had explosives in the baggage area, the people were knocked out with gas, and the plane was flown by remote control. Instead of the word "drone" the words "remote controlled plane" would be more specific.

 

[DGM]

At a near 45 degree angle, much more of the plane should have been found outside, as it was deflected and bounced off. We didn't find that.

Wait, How much more? You could be on to something. Show us your work. (You didn't pull this out of your arse, did you?)

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

We are talking about a man who thought his group of people being trained were JEDI warriors.
Penman, Danny (October 23, 2009). "Can you kill a goat by staring into its eyes?". Daily Mail. Retrieved November 11, 2009.

In the very article you sent me it describes one of General Stubblebine's successes:
"Joe McMoneagle was a Vietnam veteran and also Remote Viewer No 1. His role was to use remote viewing to spy on Russian military bases and gather intelligence. He spent more than 20 years as a remote viewer working for U.S. intelligence at Fort Meade, Maryland, the HQ of the National Security Agency. His work eventually earned him the Legion of Merit, America's highest military non-combat medal."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-film-U-S-army-experiment.html#ixzz0Wav4lZ5T

Again, the General did not claim he could walk through walls, which was your false accusation. In the article you cited as "proof", General Stubblebine is quoted a saying he could not: "I simply kept bumping my nose." (Thanks for providing the disproof of your own allegation.)

Also in the article (thanks again), it cites Michale Echanis of Special Forces as having killed a goat "just by thinking about it." in front of witnesses.

Another funny part is that Uri Geller left the program, probably for the reason he could not perform on Johnny Carson's show with James Randi there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuaJWLeSmEc

But with research like that no wonder you think that there are "missing fbi tapes"

Not missing, the FBI Special Agent report 85 tapes they have. The FOIA request has still not been fulfilled.

and there aer 1400+ architects and engineers on that petition

I already answered that, with a complete breakdown of verified licensed and degreed architects and engineers, in another thread.

 

[TruthersLie]

The fallacy is not just in the form. You left off the important next sentence:
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.

More details at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to speak on his analysis of photos, his job for years.

If he was still sane, maybe I would take him at his word.

He thinks he can walk through walls, kill people by looking at them and walk on water.

That is not someone working on a full deck.

Did you even bother to READ the links I provided? Of course not. You might want to check into your "experts" better.

 

[TruthersLie]

In the very article you sent me it describes one of General Stubblebine's successes:
"Joe McMoneagle was a Vietnam veteran and also Remote Viewer No 1. His role was to use remote viewing to spy on Russian military bases and gather intelligence. He spent more than 20 years as a remote viewer working for U.S. intelligence at Fort Meade, Maryland, the HQ of the National Security Agency. His work eventually earned him the Legion of Merit, America's highest military non-combat medal."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-film-U-S-army-experiment.html#ixzz0Wav4lZ5T

Again, the General did not claim he could walk through walls, which was your false accusation. In the article you cited as "proof" that he believed he could, General Stubblebine is quoted a saying he could not: "I simply kept bumping my nose."

Gee... lets look at this statement again.
he KEPT bumping his nose. AS in he did it more than once. He did it repeatedly. Why would you keep walking into walls if you realized that you couldn't walk through them? Was he blind? Did he need glasses? No. he was trying to walk through walls.

You might want to get the book, the Men who stare at goats and read it. The parts about stubblebine are absolutely hilarious.

did you notice the line about him being
"quietly retired" as in he didn't have a say about it, and the army wanted to get rid of him? Gee I wonder why...

One of his "successes" had a less than 25% chance of being correct. Flip a coin and you have better odds.

Not missing, the FBI Special Agent report 85 tapes they have. The FOIA request has still not been fulfilled.

and you have been informed what you are claiming is BS by the PERSON WHO WROTE THE FOIA.

I already answered that, with a complete breakdown of verified licensed and degreed architects and engineers, in another thread.

and you keep LYING about that petition. A person cannot call themselves an architect NOR an Engineer unless they are both degreed AND licensed. You are trying to count people who are degreed OR licensed. Why do you continue to LIE about it? Does admitting that you only have 514 licensed and degreed architects and engineers hurt that much?

 

[TruthersLie]

Remember we are talking about something that happened in a split second. Also, the first of the 5 frames we got from the Pentagon show the fireball. Why is there is no photo of a plane partially in the Pentagon?

Cameras catch "photo finishes" in races, that the human eye cannot. That is why they are often used in the Olympics and other sports events.

oh goody. MOre arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Do you know the difference between a camera set at a specific spot which is triggered by something coming into frame with a high shutter rate, vs a fish eye lense that has a frame rate of 5 frames per second? It is rather basic...

False assumption. I've read over 100. Some, like confirmed BS'er Steve Stoti, they saw it "like it was in slow motion." Right. I even went personally to check his balcony view, after he moved out, and it was being shown to tenants. It was a mile away from the Pentagon, mostly obscured by buildings.

awesome.... So the idea that you were from the Citizens Investigation group is right... coolness.

Why is it that on 9/11 the FDRs were not recovered as they have been on every other crash, even from the bottom of an ocean?

Citation please

really? EVERY other crash? your incredulity and ignorance are showing again. YOu might want to look that up. This quote is wrong on 2 instances.

If it was a drone, painted to look like Flight 77, no one could tell the difference. If Flight 77 had explosives in the baggage area, the people were knocked out with gas, and the plane was flown by remote control. Instead of the word "drone" the words "remote controlled plane" would be more specific.

A drone would be a smaller jet, then it would have had less impact, less damage to the pentagon due to the lower mass.
Wouldn't it have been easier just to crash a jet into the pentagon?

How big is this conspiracy now? The SEC, the NTSB, the FBI, the folks who had to prep the drone, fuel the drone, remote control the drone, or the people who had to load the explosives into the luggage bay, the people who had to rig the gas , and the people who had to fly the jets by remote control into the building...

wowsers... it is int he hundreds if not the thousands... absolutely amazing.

 

[TruthersLie]

Back to the good old appeal to authority fail of general stubblebine.

From the book, the men who stare at goats.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Stare...=UTF8&qid=1303416525&sr=1-1#reader_B003E7ET0I

Just read the introduction. Pages 1 to 10.
Then read the bibliography

Of course you could actually READ the newspaper article I cited as well

He was one of America's most distinguished soldiers and chief of U.S. Army Intelligence, with 16,000 soldiers under his command. He was instrumental in the invasions of Panama and Grenada. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Albert Stubblebine III was at the heart of America's military machine.

He was also a man who tried to walk through walls.

Visitors to Stubblebine's offices at Arlington, Virginia, are told of him repeatedly walking at walls - only to bounce painfully off them.

But in his mind, there was never any doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects would one day be a common tool in the intelligence-gathering arsenal.

Nonetheless, he was continuously frustrated by his own, rather embarrassing, lack of success.

'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.'

Does that mean he thinks levitation is possible too?


Oh wait... he really did (and still does) think that you can walk through walls.

and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Major_General_Albert_Stubblebine

Major General Albert Stubblebine
Main article: Albert Stubblebine

A key sponsor of the research internally at Fort Meade, MD, MG Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his Battalion Commanders learn how to bend spoons a la Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, even attempting to walk through walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), during which time the remote viewing project in the US Army began. Some commentators have confused a "Project Jedi", allegedly run by Special Forces primarily out of Fort Bragg, with Stargate. After some controversy involving these experiments and alleged security violations from uncleared civilian psychics working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Major General Stubblebine was placed on retirement. His successor as the INSCOM commander was Major General Harry Soyster, who had a reputation as a much more conservative and conventional intelligence officer. MG Soyster was not amenable to continuing paranormal experiments and the Army's participation in Project Stargate ended during his tenure.[6]

footnote 6 is
^ a b Memoirs of a Psychic Spy: The Remarkable Life of U.S. Government Remote Viewer 001 by Joseph McMoneagle, Hampton Roads Publishing Co., 2002, 2006

He tried to walk through WALLS (notice the plural, it is important). Also notice he WAS PLACED on retirement. They forced him out because he was bat **** crazy.

Oh and we can't leave out his claims and attempts at psychic healing.

Appeal to authority rejected due to mental defect or disability.
Try again