partial quote

"His most attractive claim, which is irresistible for believers in conspiracy, is that 9/11 was a false flag operation--which is true. But, for such a smart guy, he can't seem to come to any logical conclusions that leads him to suspect there is systematic evil lurking deep in the government that is capable of doing such an act. To him this seems to be something "new" and disturbing. But without the proper and broader implications of the 9/11 attack, which point to a much larger conspiracy against liberty, his charges are shallow.

His more tantalizing claim is that nine years ago he told Alex Jones that "a general working for Paul Wolfowitz" told him that "9/11 was an inside job." I'm sure there are several insider generals who knew what was going on. But, what is disturbing is Pieczenik's refusal to give us a name. If he's trying to protect his insider relationship with government, he wouldn't be saying this in the first place on the Alex Jones show. In fact, if he said it nine years ago, the PTB would surely have heard about it and cut him off from government contacts clear back then--but that doesn't seem to be the case, according to his current claims. So who is he trying to protect? The general? What's more important, the nation he is so concerned about or the general's reputation?

Piecznenik does claim he will reveal the name to a grand jury, but that is suspect since he surely knows the chance of a grand jury taking up this issue is absolutely nil. The real issue is that naming names would demand answers, and those questions and answers would point to a broader deeper conspiracy which Pieczenik doesn't seem to want to discuss. He never does.

With all this said, some of his specific analysis is true, but his use of it is weak. For example, he says that 80% of CIA are mercenaries and contractors, which is true. However, that's not really a problem related to the military-industrial complex, as he claims. It is related to government attempts to hide the illegal dirty work that goes on during all administrations and keep it away from the occasional honest military guy who might be disturbed by the evil he sees and be tempted to blow the whistle--as happened a lot during the 1980s when they didn't use vetted (for lack of principles and morals) contractors."

I agree that he should spill it if he has it.

The idea that he knows a name of a general who told him 911 was an inside job, yet he keeps it secret, is inconsistent with his whistle blower reputation.

Why wouldn't he give the name?

I can prove

he's a crackpot; he claimed Bin Laden was already dead.

Simple, ain't it?

A general told him that 9/11 was an inside job.

So what? Even if a grand jury asked him to testify, how significant would what one general told him be?

What has he done about it since then, up to the recent interview? And surely he doesn't only rely on the personal communication of one general to form his views?