It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”
May 18, 2009 – More than 40 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and most have called for a new investigation. It is outrageous that most Americans are entirely unaware of their publicly stated concerns -- a direct result of the refusal of national print and broadcast news organizations to cover this extremely important issue. There is no denying the credibility of these individuals or their loyalty to their country as demonstrated by their years of service collecting and analyzing information and planning and carrying out operations critical to the national security of the United States.
These 41 individuals formerly served in the U.S. State Department, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the branches of the U.S. Military. They are listed below by their branch of service.
She continued, “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”
Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote: “There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner.
This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile.’ [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93, which allegedly crashed into the ground near Shanksville, PA, as the plane that was ‘shot down’ over Pennsylvania.]
“I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
“The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
Originally posted by redhead57
I just don't think we will ever get the truth. I fear this is going to be just like the assassination of JFK,
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Is it not amazing how people simply accept anything they read from anyone at all if it agrees with their theories? If nobody is going to check these people out and just accept what they say and pass it on, none of this has any value. Cut and Paste does not equal facts.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
If you have not noticed the Left is still in full blown campaign mode with all guns blazing.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
You are clearly an unbiased source yourself. Defending accepting anything you read without verification or research is just OK with you?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Prove me wrong or perhaps you should not criticize?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Terrell E. Arnold, MA-
Regular guest columnist at Rense.com.
Anti-War, anti-Bush campaigner.
Author of many articles with anti-Semitic leanings implying the Holocaust is overblown and wrongly reported.
Compared Obama to JFK and was a staunch supporter.
My comments – What I can find about Mr. Arnold show’s he is in the hip pocket of the Left and his work all clearly shows this. While he does not deny the Holocaust he clearly believes it has little meaning and his writings have a clear Anti-Semitic slant to them. Regarding Obama’s campaign speech in Germany he swoons over him as if he is indeed the Mesiah.
This is all I have time for at the moment. It is clear however that I'm going to find that most of the statements are from heavily biased sources some with income from books on the line, some clearly not qualified to make the statements they make.
Originally posted by nerbot
Well, how long is this going to last...how many people with credentials like this must step forward before something is done?
This isn't just going to go away, and more and more people are going to start asking questions and demanding answers, particularly now these 41 individuals have spoken out, and how many others will now feel they can join the fight knowing that they will be standing side by side with people from the Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency.
Let's hope it's a house of cards and that truth FINALLY starts to get freed.
How long can the main stream media keep people like this in the shadows?
Source: www.patriotsquestion911.com full pdf article
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.wanttoknow.info..100 Professors Question 9/11 Commission Report
patriotsquestion911.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 20/5/2009 by nerbot]
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think I'll start looking for more information on each of these people to see who they are and what their motives are.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I can't help but wonder, are all of these people Political Activists with an axe to grind?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
This is all I have time for at the moment. It is clear however that I'm going to find that most of the statements are from heavily biased sources some with income from books on the line, some clearly not qualified to make the statements they make.