Talk:Delmart Vreeland

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Low‑importance

	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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sources

The sources are ridiculously lacking, and the conspiracy theorist slant is unbecoming for Wikipedia. I've tagged the article as "totally disputed". Reinis^talk 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Too many obscure facts known by vreeland for his story to be false. much of the stories he told were false, but it is a high probability that he was a government agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.29.42 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Convictions

I removed the claim as there seems to be no RS available (Rocky Mountain News is defunct). Please find a linkable source for such a conviction and sentence. I'm not saying it did not happen but a real RS is needed here. Itabletboy (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a linkable source: [1] 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Article

This,below, was inserted by Pbmcyh and then removed by 24.197.176.99 from the article with a sarcastic,I think, edit summary. It does seem appropriate for this discussion page in case someone wishes to look into the alleged inaccuracies. Itabletboy (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of inaccuracies. The following reflects corrections to inaccuracies: -He did not have a long criminal history. Many of the convictions and outstanding charges were proved to be inaccurate; -He had no record for child sexual abuse prior to 2008; -He did not merely claim that he warned Canadian prision authorities. There was verifyable information that he (and his lawyer) warned the FBI and the RCMP national security section. RCMP witnesses testified on his case and confirmed the attempt to warn them. -The pens were not smuggled. Rather, he had a pen or pens that were contraband. The point was that the date that the pens were received and then confiscated was verified by prison witnesses to be after the note was written but prior to September 11; -It was never a "warning note". Rather, it was written as a record and sealed in his belongings in jail prior to Sept. 11 and unsealed on September 14 as proof of what he knew pre September 11. This was done because the Amercian and Canadian authroities refused to take his actual warnings seriously. That was what was meant by "Let one happen. Stop the rest" -prison witnesses testified on his case that the note was sealed in his property before September 11 and was unsealed on Sept. 14; -the evidence that he had been discharged by the Navy in 1986, during basic training was incredible. The records contained many inaccuracies and impossibilities. These were demonstrated in court. Further, a call was made in court by his lawyer to a Califormnia air base that confirmed the accuracy of a discharge document showing that he was discharged in December 2000 as a Lieutenant after his arrest in Canada. -His lawyer made the call to the Pentagon in court and confirmed that he had a rank of Lieutenant and an office (or at least telephone number and voicemail) at the Pentagon. This was not ruled inadmissible. It is mentioned in the judge's ruling. The evidence to explain this was incredible. It suggested, based on no evidence, that he was able to hack into Pentagon computers from jail or obtain a telephone number on request by phone from jail, post 9/11. This was clearly nonsense. The judge accepted it because, even though he found the explnaation highly unlikely, it was more likely than the possibility that the US Government would lie.

Article cleanup

I've removed the dubious conspiracy-oriented material cited from these sources per our reliable sources policy:

fromthewilderness.com
democraticunderground.com
www3.sympatico.ca/ron666
www.guerrillanews.com

The only marginally reliable source is "ClickonDetroit.com - Detroit News", from which I was able to find non-sensational coverage to build the article stub from. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All relevant info removed re:imprisonment in Canada before 9/11 and what happened in his trial there has been removed.

These are facts. The sanitization of the article has been so extreme, it indicates nothing of why there would even be an article about him. Fact is he called a Pentagon voice mail system from court in Canada for everyone to hear he was a Lieutenant and had a phone number and/or office. The fear of any article not conforming to the dominating narrative and that many of the original sites, which were in the Internet's just-out-of-infancy phase meaning of course many old sites do not exist anymore and likely no news about Vreeland's story will ever be made again. This makes this article a strange stub lost in the memory hole, on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.48.80.165 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delmart Vreeland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231203502/http://www.clickondetroit.com:80/news/3843181/detail.html to http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3843181/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]