Lt. Col. Jeff Latas joins the Truther ranks [Archive]

ref

5th April 2007, 04:49 PM

A new victim of false truth. Jeff Latas.

Former combat fighter pilot (F-15E and F-111). Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career. Currently commercial airline pilot.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7618

How come people with this kind of experience fall for this stuff? That's beyond belief.

Babbylonian

5th April 2007, 04:51 PM

How come people with this kind of experience fall for this stuff? That's beyond belief.
What I'm wondering is if full colonels get inducted into the NWO.

cloudshipsrule

5th April 2007, 04:52 PM

It is mind boggling. It could be some fairly intelligent people simply have no common sense. Being book smart doesn't make someone smart.

Babbylonian

5th April 2007, 04:57 PM

Oh yeah, and there's an implication (by usage and capitalization) that there is a single Air Force accident investigation board. AFAIK, a board is formed to investigate an accident after it happens. That's not to say that being the head of such a board isn't worthy of note, but if such a board was permanent and singular I doubt it would be headed by a light colonel.

DavidJames

5th April 2007, 04:58 PM

It might be interesting if these guys would offer something, anything of substance instead of just repeating the same old crap. As for this guy, I didn't see any of his comments about what he thinks happened. Did I miss them?

Vincent Vega

5th April 2007, 04:59 PM

He actually didn't claim anything very controversial, so perhaps he just has legitimate questions?

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."

TellyKNeasuss

5th April 2007, 05:06 PM

A new victim of false truth. Jeff Latas.

Is this the guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Latas

He is currently a pilot for (gag) JetBlue (you're not getting off our plane until we say so) Airlines. A quick spin with Google shows finds no hits that would indicate that there is a permanent "Air Force Accident Investigation Board".

ref

5th April 2007, 05:12 PM

Is this the guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Latas

He is currently a pilot for (gag) JetBlue (you're not getting off our plane until we say so) Airlines. A quick spin with Google shows finds no hits that would indicate that there is a permanent "Air Force Accident Investigation Board".

That's the same guy. You can also see his picture here.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Latas

T.A.M.

5th April 2007, 05:26 PM

He actually didn't claim anything very controversial, so perhaps he just has legitimate questions?

I love the quote in your post. That has to be the biggest lie I have seen in a while. They don't have theories or lay blame...what a crock.

Pilots is headed by JDX who is about as Woowoo as they come, and buys into almost all the 9/11 CTs.

TAM:jaw-dropp

T.A.M.

5th April 2007, 05:33 PM

Mr. Skinny

5th April 2007, 05:42 PM

Oh yeah, and there's an implication (by usage and capitalization) that there is a single Air Force accident investigation board. AFAIK, a board is formed to investigate an accident after it happens.

You are correct. There is no single investigation board. There is a list of qualified individual that are on call to serve on said boards. They have to meet certain training requirements in order to qualify. They are called upon based on their individual expertise, as required.

Also, the Air Force does not use the word "Accident". They use the word "Mishap".

That's not to say that being the head of such a board isn't worthy of note, but if such a board was permanent and singular I doubt it would be headed by a light colonel.

Agree (if it was permanent and singular), otherwise, I'd expect it to be headed by a full bird at minimum.

ETA: Can't recall the head of a Mishap Investigation Board being refered to as "President" either. IIRC they are refered to a "Chairperson" (I'll double check at work tomorrow).

apathoid

5th April 2007, 06:04 PM

Maybe someone should take each person on the "patriots" list there, and email them to ask them (a) do they think 9/11 was an inside job, and (b) do they know a bunch of crackpots are using their names for such purposes.

TAM

Probably not a bad idea. But I'm guessing we wouldn't get very many replies. Hardly any of the PfffT members have ever posted at their own forum; they simply "join" and then vanish. I'm also not sure about the credibility of the patriotsquestion911 site.

If you are a 9/11 survivor, or family member, or an active or former senior member of the military, intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, or government, or a professor who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.

Instead of contacting existing members, we could simply conduct a little covert black-ops exercise to see what lengths this site goes to to verify the identities of their new members. In the meantime though, I'll be on the lookout for a Lauro Chavez sighting. Methinks he'll be on the list soon....

Unsecured Coins

5th April 2007, 06:11 PM

another thing that chaps my ass...

doesn't anybody care about the Lower Enlisted that don't think 9/11 was an inside job?

defaultdotxbe

5th April 2007, 06:13 PM

He actually didn't claim anything very controversial, so perhaps he just has legitimate questions?
id call this controversial:

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals

Mr. Skinny

5th April 2007, 06:14 PM

another thing that chaps my ass...

doesn't anybody care about the Lower Enlisted that don't think 9/11 was an inside job?
I suppose it's because having an officer rank means you have, at minimum, a university education.

Unsecured Coins

5th April 2007, 06:15 PM

not quite. some officers have been through OCS.

Mr. Skinny

5th April 2007, 06:21 PM

not quite. some officers have been through OCS.
Good point.

I suppose that's where the "90 day wonder" thing came from.

I stand corrected.

Mr. Skinny

5th April 2007, 06:25 PM

Former combat fighter pilot (F-15E and F-111). Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career. Currently commercial airline pilot.
(bolding mine)

Has anyone ever heard of a Weapons Requirements Officer? I googled it and got just a few hits that went back to Loose Change and Pilots for Truth sites?

Beachnut ????

Totovader

5th April 2007, 06:28 PM

He actually didn't claim anything very controversial, so perhaps he just has legitimate questions?

And as with the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth", the "association statement" is often the same for most everyone. It's simply attributed to you by joining. Putting quotes around it is a bit disingenuous.

Without making any clear statements supported by evidence- his title and qualifications are no better than mine or anyone else's.

Vincent Vega

6th April 2007, 08:06 AM

My mistake. I intrepreted it to mean the quote was attributed to LTC Latas.

Vincent Vega

6th April 2007, 08:07 AM

not quite. some officers have been through OCS.

does not preclude a college degree. Certainly doesn't nowadays.

Mr. Skinny

6th April 2007, 12:11 PM

Also, the Air Force does not use the word "Accident". They use the word "Mishap".

Agree (if it was permanent and singular), otherwise, I'd expect it to be headed by a full bird at minimum.

ETA: Can't recall the head of a Mishap Investigation Board being refered to as "President" either. IIRC they are refered to a "Chairperson" (I'll double check at work tomorrow).
Quoting myself to correct my mistake.

The USAF does have "Accident Investigation Boards" and there is a board "President". These boards are in addition to Safety Investigation Boards and are convened to deal primarily with legal issues associated with a mishap.

scissorhands

6th April 2007, 01:32 PM

Im not sure of JDXs methods of "recruitment", does he simply email them with a bland statement about the necessity for a new enquiry into aspects of 9/11?
Then does he encourage them to sign up to his forum without explaining just what his crazy theories and agenda actually are?
I dont think that many of these people are aware of what they are being used for.

LashL

6th April 2007, 03:12 PM

Quoting myself to correct my mistake.

The USAF does have "Accident Investigation Boards" and there is a board "President". These boards are in addition to Safety Investigation Boards and are convened to deal primarily with legal issues associated with a mishap.

I had just done some quick internet searches when I saw your post and was about to post that the USAF does have AIBs (as well as SIBs), and that they do refer to a board "president", while NASA uses different language in connection with their AIBs - they appoint a Board Chairman (or Chairperson).

Links:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=926
RE: crash of Air Force CT-43A aircraft near Dubrovnik, Croatia, on April 3, 1996; Dept. of Defense refers to “board president”.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/press_releases/pr030321.html
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/press_releases/pr030215.html
RE: crash of Space Shuttle Columbia; NASA refers to “board chairman”.

negativ

6th April 2007, 04:19 PM

another thing that chaps my ass...

doesn't anybody care about the Lower Enlisted that don't think 9/11 was an inside job?

Don't you know that enlisted ranks are just a bunch of low-income, uneducated slum dwellers who only signed up as a last resort for the pay and benefits? They totally Jedi Mind Trick those poor weak-minded hillbillies into unthinking, robotic obedience, whereupon they go off and commit atrocities like making innocent prisoners wear underpants on their head.

Mr. Skinny

6th April 2007, 04:20 PM

I had just done some quick internet searches when I saw your post and was about to post that the USAF does have AIBs (as well as SIBs), and that they do refer to a board "president", while NASA uses different language in connection with their AIBs - they appoint a Board Chairman (or Chairperson).

Links:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=926
RE: crash of Air Force CT-43A aircraft near Dubrovnik, Croatia, on April 3, 1996; Dept. of Defense refers to “board president”.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/press_releases/pr030321.html
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/caib/news/press_releases/pr030215.html
RE: crash of Space Shuttle Columbia; NASA refers to “board chairman”.

LashL,

I was just admitting to my mistake. A bit embarrased actually, because I'm a safety engineer and move within that community. I've never investigated and aircraft mishap though, so I had to go in and re-read a few regs.

LashL

6th April 2007, 04:44 PM

LashL,

I was just admitting to my mistake. A bit embarrased actually, because I'm a safety engineer and move within that community. I've never investigated and aircraft mishap though, so I had to go in and re-read a few regs.

I realize that you were correcting your prior post - although you need not be embarrassed about it, especially as you said in the prior post that you weren't sure and were going to look it up.

What I intended to illustrate in my post is that the NASA investigation boards appoint a "chairperson" rather than a "president" as I saw that a possible source of an understandable mix up. :)

Loss Leader

6th April 2007, 05:01 PM

It just occurred to me that the more high-ranking military officers there are who suspect a conspiracy, the less likely a conspiracy really is. I mean, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, the US would need to have involved massive numbers of Air Force officers (after all, you needed NORAD to be "out of commission" that day and pilots to take their time getting into the air and even some pilots to fly AA77 and the other planes to their safe locations).

If there are high ranking AF officers with no direct knowledge of any wrongdoing, that hurts the CT case.

firecoins

6th April 2007, 05:10 PM

gumboot

6th April 2007, 05:19 PM

I think these are primarily just woo-woo officers, but genuine military personnel. I think they're just ignorant of what happened on 9/11, have been exposed to CTs, and accept it.

If we consider... some individuals opposed to the Iraq War have fabricated stories of atrocities, presented by equally fake military personnel.

Thbey didn't fake a military staffer and say "I think there's atrocities because I heard..."

They come out and directly claim having witnessed and partaken in it.

Likewise, I'd expect a fabricated military staffer to make much more direct claims than the usual CT stuff. I'd expect them to have witnessed the stand down order, or have been a pilot told not to intercept, or whatever...

-Gumboot

Mr. Skinny

6th April 2007, 05:29 PM

I realize that you were correcting your prior post - although you need not be embarrassed about it, especially as you said in the prior post that you weren't sure and were going to look it up.

What I intended to illustrate in my post is that the NASA investigation boards appoint a "chairperson" rather than a "president" as I saw that a possible source of an understandable mix up. :)

You're more than kind, thanks.

It just occurred to me that the more high-ranking military officers there are who suspect a conspiracy, the less likely a conspiracy really is. I mean, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, the US would need to have involved massive numbers of Air Force officers (after all, you needed NORAD to be "out of commission" that day and pilots to take their time getting into the air and even some pilots to fly AA77 and the other planes to their safe locations).

If there are high ranking AF officers with no direct knowledge of any wrongdoing, that hurts the CT case.

I think you could involve small numbers of officers in a small conspiracy.

Not sure of your more = less likely theory though.

1. Loss Leader is right. Top AF officers would be in the know on a conspiracy since NORAD would have been involved in said conspiracy. Even further more since the Pentagon was a target.

2. How many people have claimed to be apart of the military and were not? Or misrepresented their military career? Politicians have tended to do so. Bush comes to mind. Possibly Kerry if there was any truth to the Swift boat charges. Some Republican was caught claiming to be in Vietnam when he was not. There are others. Show me this guys records.

3. If he is legit, he could be providing disinformation to cover the real conspiracy.

OK, but let's not start any new conspiracy theories, OK? It's bad enough as it is.

Darth Rotor

7th April 2007, 09:56 AM

That's the same guy. You can also see his picture here.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Latas

That site has some issues, but is interesting.

Congressman Ron Paul, MD

FFS, Ron Paul is from Texas.

Can't they get their facts straight?

DR

pomeroo

7th April 2007, 10:06 AM

1. Loss Leader is right. Top AF officers would be in the know on a conspiracy since NORAD would have been involved in said conspiracy. Even further more since the Pentagon was a target.

2. How many people have claimed to be apart of the military and were not? Or misrepresented their military career? Politicians have tended to do so. Bush comes to mind. Possibly Kerry if there was any truth to the Swift boat charges. Some Republican was caught claiming to be in Vietnam when he was not. There are others. Show me this guys records.

I'm puzzled. How did Bush misrepresent his military record? Kerry claimed to volunteer for the Navy, when he really asked for a deferment to study in Paris for a year. He was turned down, so he joined the Naval Reserve.
If there is "any" truth to the Swiftees' charges? Uh, Kerry claimed that he was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, on a secret mission devised by President Nixon (the incident was "seared" into his memory--there can be no appeal to hazy recollections, as Kerry has repeated his falsehood often). Kerry was NOT in Cambodia and Lyndon Johnson was President until January 20, 1969. On the single issue where we know with certainty who was lying and who was telling the truth, Kerry was the liar.

3. If he is legit, he could be providing disinformation to cover the real conspiracy.

I have attempted, without success, to track down various members of "pilots for Truth." They are an elusive lot.

uk_dave

7th April 2007, 10:20 AM

I have attempted, without success, to track down various members of "pilots for Truth." They are an elusive lot.

Maybe you could try your sluething skills on this one as water-bender gives us an object lesson in respecting the anonimity of your 'whistleblower'.....

alternately i have wondered if we were barking up the wrong tree with looing for wheel based locked brakes. what if hes refering to the airbrakes? the most disturbing thing is that he flatly wont talk about anyting anymore. he'd told me he didnt want the gmen in thier black cars to be visiting him again, and he also told me he was in litigation with AMR and couldn't jeopardize that. and for further info, this guys not a slouch or a disgruntled ex employee type. he's a fairly influential individual. his wife ran for the senate last fall, and hes very high up in one the nations most influential flight organizations. by very high up i mean he's around third in line and the most experienced pilot in an organization that shapes the flight laws in the united states.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7018

So, a former AA pilot, forced into early retirement because of....something... shouldn't be too difficult to track down :D

What I don't understand though, is normally when we want to silence someone we offer them large amounts of money or bump them off. Seldom have I seen a 'whistleblower' in such a senior position be forced into early retirement, and him with a prospective senatorial wife too.

Someone in the 'organisation' obviously slipped up on this one. Big owl will not be pleased.

apathoid

7th April 2007, 11:45 AM

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7018

So, a former AA pilot, forced into early retirement because of....something... shouldn't be too difficult to track down :D

What I don't understand though, is normally when we want to silence someone we offer them large amounts of money or bump them off. Seldom have I seen a 'whistleblower' in such a senior position be forced into early retirement, and him with a prospective senatorial wife too.

Someone in the 'organisation' obviously slipped up on this one. Big owl will not be pleased.

That thread is hilarious. Hmmm, brake problems...how completely unusual for airliner(:rolleyes: )....must be part of teh conspiracy!11!