Talk:Delmart Vreeland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

What is the source of this information? Many articles on Vreeland seem to suggest a very different picture... gidonb 10:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For your convenience:

The information on this page seems biased towards Michael Ruppert stories on Vreland, rather that based on everything that has been reported in the press. I added a POV warning. gidonb 10:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This page rebukes many of the "facts" in our article on Vreeland: http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/ruppert.html gidonb 10:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with you that it's slanted towards not telling the whole truth, I simply copy/pasted this from the 9/11 Conspiracies wikipedia article Sherurcij 15:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that page carries a POV warning as well, then. gidonb 11:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd

The Delmart Vreeland story has been thoroughly debunked for a long time now. It is disappointing to read articles like this at this point.

Vreeland claimed in court that he designed the original Star Wars system in 1986. When asked by a judge how he accomplished that without having graduated high school, Vreeland said that he liked to read a lot.

Vreeland's navy records show that he didn't make it through basic training. He was kicked out of the navy for using false identification when he signed up. He used his brother's Social Security number. The US Navy did not submit records 1200 pages long at Vreeland's extradition hearing. His navy record was 56 pages long. Vreeland confirmed this himself in an interview.

In this radio interview Vreeland actually says the exact opposite.Schwarzenschafe 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vreeland does not speak Russian, nor does anyone in his family recall him ever travelling to Russia. A document purported by Vreeland to be the "evidence" by which he allegedly learned of the 9/11 plot was written in such poor Russian that people who do speak Russian believe that it was created by an online translator like Babel-fish.

Vreeland said he flew to Moscow from Sudbury, Ontario. This is not possible.

In this radio interview Vreeland says it wasn't a commercial flight, it was a private charter. Maybe I missed your point.Schwarzenschafe 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The credit card used in the fraud case in Michigan (actually multiple fraud charges) did not have Delmart Vreeland's name on it, as it states in the wikipedia article. It was fraudulently obtained using a false identity and drew on the credit of a third party, who is also a fraud victim. The charges were not dismissed and were, in fact, the reason the US was seeking his extradition from Canada. Some Canadian charges against Vreeland were dropped to speed up the extradition process.

If you read the alleged warning note, you can easily see that it cannot be interpreted as a warning of anything. The note also lacks many attributes of an intelligence report. Most notably, it is not dated (which would have been excellent proof of when it was written) and, in fact, contains no specific dates at all. No 2001, no September, no eleven. There is no mention of a hijacking. There is not even mention of an airplane.

Five rulings were handed down by several judges in Canada in Vreeland's extradition case. The legal standard by which Vreeland would have been successful at these hearings was that his story needed to have an "air of reality." All the judges said that his story was not believable in any way, which is not surprising, considering most of what he told them.

Evidence was submitted at one of Vreeland's hearings explaining how he pulled off the Pentagon phone call. It is public record. As evidence it was not admissible.

Of course, from jail he tricked the US Pentagon into listing him as a lieutenant and giving him an office and a phone number. That makes much more sense.Schwarzenschafe 09:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vreeland was not "later" called a con artist. He has been called a con artist since he was 18 years old. He has spent the overwhelming majority of his adult life behind bars and will likely continue to do so. He remains a wanted felon in Canada and has outstanding charges in more then 6 US states.

When Vreeland met with Canadian government officials he did not warn them of anything. He said that he would give them information but only in exchange for his freedom. This means that in the unlikely event that any element of Vreeland's story is true, he put his own freedom before the lives of the thousands of innocent people who died on 9/11.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/vreeland.html

In order to confirm what is written above go to this page but be prepared to spend a great deal of time listening to interviews and reading the articles. It's all there but it will take you months to get through it all. It took the collective efforts of a half-dozen people in 3 countries over 6 months to put it all together.

Hello Ron, since the article is biased I have put a warning on top. The editor who placed the text agreed that the text is biased. He only moved this text from another article that was getting to wordy. Please feel free to edit the article according to the facts and the Wikipedia editing standards. Let me know if you need any help. You are welcome to remove the warning when you are done. Oh yes, perhaps you can tell some more about whether he was convicted in this latest fraud case and about his earlier convictions. Best regards, gidonb 22:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the only people likely to read or edit this page - which is about a minor cog in the 9/11 conspiracy industry - are likely to be interested parties, who themselves will have a fascination for and expertise in disinformation and propaganda. I therefore conclude that this article will remain skewed forevermore. God help us if the subject of the article ever gets internet access. Lupine Proletariat 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] only citations debunk yet article has a truthiness feel

anyone want to explain?

If you take just a portion of his story as fact then the massive attempt to discredit him in court and the media makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Seems to me no one cares enough to do anything but cut/paste an article. Schwarzenschafe 09:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The sources are ridiculously lacking, and the conspiracy theorist slant is unbecoming for Wikipedia. I've tagged the article as "totally disputed". Reinistalk 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)