She shares an interesting story about her stint at the military.

Having been in the Air Force for 8 years myself, and given probably a hgher secrity clearance than hers, I find it VERY odd that an 'industrial hygenist' (not even a specialist classification in the Air Force) at the rank of merely staff sergeant (not even a commisioned rank, and barely a management level rank for non-commisioned enlisted) would be made privy to data like that.

I worked with form 3215, which deals with communications equipment, and I don't recall contracters needing to be listed on these forms if they are classified. 'Need to know' means you must be on the distribution list of that specific message, product, or service, and persons handling the distribution or even 'inspection' do not always have a 'need to know'--a staff sergeant certainly wouldn't.

I'm not saying that what she witnessed wasn't real or that she is lying. I just question how in depth her 'connecting the dots' could possibly be. I mean, I worked in a damned bunker 90 feet underground for 2 years (it had a war room that looked like something out of a movie), and I wasn't made privy to anything highly classified (I was an e-4/ she's only an e-5).

Also, 'highly decorated' non-commisioned enlisted officers aren't ever really highly decorated.

The Air Force is the smart branch...only the commissioned officers get to fight.

SHe wasn't a luetenant at all--she was a staff sergeant. She didn't see any action. Therefore, couldnt' have been highly decorated.

She certainly may have coloured her story a bit and I do not immediately assume she is telling truth. But the source where this news-we've-all-heard-of comes from does make it at least a bit more credible and I do not dismiss it with a knee jerk reaction.

typo edit

[Edited 4/13/13 3:44am]

I caught an interview with her a few weeks back.

They sure make the sky look ugly.

Scary stuff.

MacDaddy said:

She certainly may have coloured her story a bit and I do not immediately assume she is telling truth. But the source where this news-we've-all-heard-of comes from does make it at least a bit more credible and I do not dismiss it with a knee jerk reaction.

typo edit

[Edited 4/13/13 3:44am]

Dude, of course not. She's supporting your belief which is why you posted it. You believe it because it's what you already believe.

If she were talking about planes bringing down the WTC, I doubt you would've posted it.

Cloudbuster said:

Why chemtrails at all? Wouldn't clouds be less conspicuous?

But it's so top secret I guess they want to make sure you see it, notice it, and uncover nation security secrets.

imago said:

NDRU said:

imago said:

Having been in the Air Force for 8 years myself, and given probably a hgher secrity clearance than hers, I find it VERY odd that an 'industrial hygenist' (not even a specialist classification in the Air Force) at the rank of merely staff sergeant (not even a commisioned rank, and barely a management level rank for non-commisioned enlisted) would be made privy to data like that.

I worked with form 3215, which deals with communications equipment, and I don't recall contracters needing to be listed on these forms if they are classified. 'Need to know' means you must be on the distribution list of that specific message, product, or service, and persons handling the distribution or even 'inspection' do not always have a 'need to know'--a staff sergeant certainly wouldn't.

I'm not saying that what she witnessed wasn't real or that she is lying. I just question how in depth her 'connecting the dots' could possibly be. I mean, I worked in a damned bunker 90 feet underground for 2 years (it had a war room that looked like something out of a movie), and I wasn't made privy to anything highly classified (I was an e-4/ she's only an e-5).

Sure,but if you knew anything then you'd be hiding it from the rest of us. So the only people telling the truth are the ones without access to it. Hmm how does that work?

Why are you assuming she's telling a truth she has no access to?

It may be based upon her information and belief, but that may not be the correct information or the correct interpretation of information that may have been available in some context.

And, let's face it. Top secret documents are read my more than just people with clearance to do so. Wikileaks anyone?

SUPRMAN said:

NDRU said:

imago said: Sure,but if you knew anything then you'd be hiding it from the rest of us. So the only people telling the truth are the ones without access to it. Hmm how does that work?

Why are you assuming she's telling a truth she has no access to?

It may be based upon her information and belief, but that may not be the correct information or the correct interpretation of information that may have been available in some context.

And, let's face it. Top secret documents are read my more than just people with clearance to do so. Wikileaks anyone?

I'm not assuming anything, just making a half-serious observation on the apparent paradox that people with authority rarely tell us the truth, and the people who tell the truth rarely have authority.

What the truth actually is is the question

NDRU said:

imago said:

Having been in the Air Force for 8 years myself, and given probably a hgher secrity clearance than hers, I find it VERY odd that an 'industrial hygenist' (not even a specialist classification in the Air Force) at the rank of merely staff sergeant (not even a commisioned rank, and barely a management level rank for non-commisioned enlisted) would be made privy to data like that.

I worked with form 3215, which deals with communications equipment, and I don't recall contracters needing to be listed on these forms if they are classified. 'Need to know' means you must be on the distribution list of that specific message, product, or service, and persons handling the distribution or even 'inspection' do not always have a 'need to know'--a staff sergeant certainly wouldn't.

I'm not saying that what she witnessed wasn't real or that she is lying. I just question how in depth her 'connecting the dots' could possibly be. I mean, I worked in a damned bunker 90 feet underground for 2 years (it had a war room that looked like something out of a movie), and I wasn't made privy to anything highly classified (I was an e-4/ she's only an e-5).

Sure,but if you knew anything then you'd be hiding it from the rest of us. So the only people telling the truth are the ones without access to it. Hmm how does that work?

Yes, true. Because of my previous clearance (which was far above the standard afforded to the average service member), we are required to keep our mouths shut even when the material becomes declassified (not sure why). I'm not sure if it is still true, but classfied material must now be declassified after a set number of years, though it was not grandfathered. And still, we can't discuss it.

However, my point are these:

1. She's not a luitenant--she's an enlisted e-5. (so no action = no super substantial decorations, especially since her job is a DESK JOB ).

2. The 3-xxxx forms for inspections, review, and aquisition make provisions for companies to not be listed on them so long as you can trace it back to a originating requester (military personel--normally an e6 or O2 or above)

Something I forgot to mention. We have a concept in the military called EEFIs (essential elements of friendly information), which means information may be unclassified but still put the country at risk. For example, in Vietnam the enemy was figuring out with pretty good accuracy when we were going to attack them based on unclassified normal information (product aquisitions, food orders, etc.) So these days, even information that appears benign is often 'covered up'--this does not mean that we are doing anything terrible or suspicious. But terrorist could easily figure out if dangerous chemicals are being shipped around at certain times (or any materials for that matter), with some intelligence figure out what is happening, and use that to their advantage. You simply don't want people knowing where you're shipping anything if you can help it. Moreover, if you're handling potentially dangerous materials and it originates from private companies, you would never want to divulge where those companies are--how easy would it be for the enemy to 'plant' an employee at such companies?

I'm not saying that she's not on to something. I'm just saying, I don't think her story/background credentials which she uses to justify her credibility really serves her purposes. The funny thing is that becaue of need-to-know and EEFIs, she can pretty much imply what she wants, and it won't be contested by the military in great detail (Because the military simply can't divulge much information). It's hard for some folks to wrap their heads around, but the secrecy really is to protect.

.

[Edited 4/14/13 21:11pm]