The stargate project was spook remote viewing. CIA put effort into it. Not as woo woo as you might think. Kirk
The eyes see what the mind knows --- On Mon, 9/7/09, Douglas Woodard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Douglas Woodard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 9:42 AM No conspiracy was needed. Bin Laden knew what the U.S. wanted: an excuse for U.S. armies in the Middle East. The U.S. knew what Bin Laden wanted first: a major strike at the U.S., by preference at the World Trade centre (they had tried before, and it was highly symbolic). They differed on what the result of U.S. armies in the Middle East would be. Points to Bin Laden. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Keith Addison wrote: >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1> > > Aarghh!! Youtube! Who's got 5 min 16 sec to spare? > > This is quicker... > > The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically > States 9/11 was Staged Event". > > But is he the Head of US Military Intelligence? No. > > It takes only the first 5 sec of Youtube for him to state that his > name is Major General Albert Stubblebine, and another 10 sec to find > this at wikipedia: > > "Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding > general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command > from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his > interest in parapsychology and was a supporter of the Stargate > Project." > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine> > > Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army > intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**. Not quite the same > thing eh. > > (Walked through any walls lately Bert?) > > That saved 5 min 1 sec, and gave a much better result. > > Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate? > > Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive again: "Enough of the 9/11 > Conspiracy Theories, Already" <http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/> > > If it doesn't start off with the preferred conclusion-of-choice and > then go in search of the "facts" to "prove" it, but instead simply > goes in search of facts, along with all the patient and careful > cross-checking that takes, and then emerges with a fact-based > conclusion that checks out, or even with just some hard facts without > a conclusion... well then, that's different. But AFAIK it hasn't > happened yet, and don't hold yer breath. > > Best > > Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090907/a902018e/attachment.html _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/