Military Professionals Dispute 911

Originally posted by Sean48

Here are some Experts in their field, Military with experience that is undisputable.
These Patriots remember their oath . (enemies , foreign and domestic).



Col. George Nelson MBA US Air Force (ret)

Former US Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigator and Airplane Parts Authority.
" In all my years of direct and indirect particapation, I never witnessed or even heard of a aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft."
patriotsquestion911.com...

Thats why this thread is so important sir.
Your questions are being answered by Professionals.
This Gentleman(quote above) does KNOW airplane crashes.

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by sciemus

So eyewitness reports that say the event happened the way the OS claimed it happened are to be disregarded in favor of experts, many of who did not witness the event?

That's not how I learned how to conduct scientific investigation. In fact, I've found in my discipline, that leads to errors.

One should never trust anyone simply on the basis that they possess some kind of specific knowledge of a subject. There are often situations where we have to, and usually it is fine. But in a situation such as this, just because somebody says, "I know x, x can't be y", it means nothing.

So when the NIST report came out, that was professionals in their fields, saying how the towers collapased, you are saying we should not believe them?

They weren't witnessess to the scene , you can't have it both ways.

You're putting words in my mouth.

To put what I was saying above another way: I'm a linguist. Let's say one day, I'm in class, and my instructor tells me that the English language is genetically related to the Hawaiian language. Do I believe my instructor, simply because he is a professor? Or do I do the work for myself and see that it quickly becomes bull#, when basic words that are typically used to relate languages don't match up? Logically, the second one is what I should do.

The NIST report and the professionals who wrote it had access to physical evidence at the various sites, they reviewed all the relevant architectural information (such as blueprints), they had access to photographic and video records of the incident, they conducted interviews with survivors. Their report was rigorous and comprehensive.

The purpose of their report was not just to prove or disprove the OS; their purpose was to first reconstruct the incidents, second to improve fire and other building codes, and third other safety practices, such as evacuation procedures.

Not only do they have expertise in their field, but they have done active work on the subject.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by WarloriousCreed

 

yeah, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The Pentagon was insanely well built.

The plane managed to go through three rings... which is shocking.

And the French, god bless, are obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Believe them about 9/11 at your own risk.

So... wheres the plane at? What about those wing marks again? Why was there just a little hole? If the pentagon was so structurally sound it would have stripped those wings off right? So why are the wings not lying around outside? And whats up with 'Believe them about 9/11 at your own risk'? You trying to say I am going to get injected with an RFID like Aaron Russo talks about? I am already 'on the list'.

Seethelight - why was there a little hole in the pentagon with no wing damage? If nothing else those wings would have had to have been stripped off the body of the plane. So why weren't the wings lying outside the building? Why didn't we recover the plane? If for nothing else than to eliminate these conspiracies.

It blows my mind that there was a guy suggesting to infiltrate conspiracy theorists groups to undermine conspiracies. You know, if they want to put an end to the 9-11 conspiracy theory all they have to do is show the evidence of the airplanes. Then they wouldnt have to send people into places like ATS to use 'logic' and so forth to undermine the debate.

There was a tiny hole in the pentagon, no wing damage or wings lying outside.

There are pilots saying they could not do what rank amateurs did.

www.wordsforgood.org...

Former Italy President: "9-11 Was CIA/Mossad Operation"

You have people from pretty considerable rungs of the social ladder saying 9-11 was an inside job.

It is ironic what Aaron Russo has to say. He talks about how the origin of the war on terror is essentially the Federal Reserve which loans money to the government at intrest. When the USA goes to war and needs to borrow money, it borrows from the Federal Reserve at interest. Aaron Russo talks about the Rockefellers, and points out they are partial owners of the Federal Reserve... here is his full testimony:



I am not a fan of Alex Jones don't get me wrong.

Its Ironic that the owners of the Federal Reserve would profit from 9-11.
Its Ironic that the President does not control Area or 51... "someone else" does.
Its Ironic that instead of just showing us airplane parts and evidence to quell conspiracy theorists there has been talk of infiltrating the groups... like this group.
Its Ironic that Aaron Russo talks about ---never ending wars on terror---, because look at what we have going on in the Middle East now...
Its Ironic we were lied to about the tunnel structures in the mountains in Afghanistan... and the terrorists that built/operated them. There was no such thing.
Its Ironic we were lied to about WMD's in Iraq.

It's all so Ironic because it fits with what Aaron Russo is talking about. I dont believe in the RFID thing. I believe the RFID is something like Operation Norwoods, its their wet dream, but not something they will be able to do... unless they kill all but half a billion.

We have talked about superficial things regarding 9-11 in this thread. It kinda makes me sick. You can't deny the owners of the Federal Reserve have profited from 9-11. You cant deny that there is reasonable suspicion that a conspiracy is in place right now. You can say what you want, even say that the former Italian President thinks he can walk through walls. There is so much stuff out there, and it seems the deeper you dig the more 'it' 'connects'

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" Christian von Ehrenfeis

Originally posted by sciemus
To put what I was saying above another way: I'm a linguist. Let's say one day, I'm in class, and my instructor tells me that the English language is genetically related to the Hawaiian language. Do I believe my instructor, simply because he is a professor? Or do I do the work for myself and see that it quickly becomes bull#, when basic words that are typically used to relate languages don't match up? Logically, the second one is what I should do.

Let me give a bit of a better example of this:

Let's say one of my other professors tells me Korean and Japanese are definitely not related. Understandably, after my experience with the first professor, I'm ready to call bull#. But then he give me a copy of his book he's been working on, where he's done the work looking for all the ways people say the two languages might be related, and finding refutations for all of them. Should I simply believe him because he is a professor? Should I do the work myself? Or do I disbelieve him because the first professor was so wrong?

Originally posted by sciemus

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by mikelee

 

Lt Col. Karen U Kwiatkowski PHd US Air Force

Political Military Affairs , Office of Secrectary of Defense

"It is as a scientist that I have most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics."'

'There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] 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."

"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. ... all 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.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say she really should have looked harder, because I see a lot of aircraft debris in these pictures:















Many, many more images of aircraft debris can be found with a simple Google search.

And as for the lack of wing impact, unfortunately very few photographs were taken of the impact site before the facade collapsed. With one exception, which shows the angled impact of the wings:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0d1c4858149.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by sciemus

Originally posted by sciemus
To put what I was saying above another way: I'm a linguist. Let's say one day, I'm in class, and my instructor tells me that the English language is genetically related to the Hawaiian language. Do I believe my instructor, simply because he is a professor? Or do I do the work for myself and see that it quickly becomes bull#, when basic words that are typically used to relate languages don't match up? Logically, the second one is what I should do.

Let me give a bit of a better example of this:

Let's say one of my other professors tells me Korean and Japanese are definitely not related. Understandably, after my experience with the first professor, I'm ready to call bull#. But then he give me a copy of his book he's been working on, where he's done the work looking for all the ways people say the two languages might be related, and finding refutations for all of them. Should I simply believe him because he is a professor? Should I do the work myself? Or do I disbelieve him because the first professor was so wrong?

How about this guy's take on things then, James Quietiere

James was in on the NIST reporting , he was the HEAD Science and FIRE
guy at NIST, He was there at the Congressional hearings as a Rep for
NIST, He wants a new investigation, says he doesn't agree with the findings

www.fpe.umd.edu...

Originally posted by Sean48
How about this guy's take on things then, James Quietiere

James was in on the NIST reporting , he was the HEAD Science and FIRE
guy at NIST, He was there at the Congressional hearings as a Rep for
NIST, He wants a new investigation, says he doesn't agree with the findings

www.fpe.umd.edu...

Yes, because he thinks there were technical errors made. He believes that the accepted fuel load of the planes that the NIST used was not enough to make the towers collapse. He says, instead, that they should reexamine the insulation on the support trusses. He is doing this based off of evidence, not conjecture.

I could extend my little metaphor to cover this as well, but I don't think it needs to be.

reply to post by sciemus


Do go on..

He believed NIST didn't use their subpeona ability at all, to call forth
proper witnesses, Destroyed the "crime scene" .

Guessed at their model recreations findings, I have read the report too.
Questioned the "removed fire protection",

And is Amazed at the report of WTC 7 being so flawed , guess work.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by sciemus

 

Do go on..

He believed NIST didn't use their subpeona ability at all, to call forth
proper witnesses, Destroyed the "crime scene" .

Guessed at their model recreations findings, I have read the report too.
Questioned the "removed fire protection",

And is Amazed at the report of WTC 7 being so flawed , guess work.

So?

He thinks parts of the whole are wrong. He never said the whole was so far off base that it wasn't even close to being right. I bet if he ran a new investigation, he would structure it around the old one, addressing problems where need be.

Originally posted by sciemus


He thinks parts of the whole are wrong. He never said the whole was so far off base that it wasn't even close to being right. I bet if he ran a new investigation, he would structure it around the old one, addressing problems where need be.

I agree with you on that. This is a Fire , Impact , Demolition Investigation.

NIST primary reason for discarding the Demolition Theory is the Logistics

of doing it.

That's their reason, how it could be done.

Fema Report said (on wtc7) Fire was probably the reason for the collapse,

although the likelyness of this happening IS SMALL.

If we don't even raise the question of some of the conflicting evidence presented to us from the OS cover story, then we have completely been brainwashed by the PTB.

There are not only us 9/11 truthers, but many professionals disputing the 911 Original Story...many have even lost their jobs because of it.

One of which is the pilotsfor911truth.org

The pilots for 9/11 Truth have discovered, that as far as Flight 77 is concerned. The NTSB document states that according to the flight data recorders data, obtained by the Freedom of Information Act, that the plane was too high to have struck the light poles AND that the cockpit door was never opened during the entire flight.

Hence, the hijacking as we are told to believe in the OS could have never occurred AND the aircraft's trajectory was too high to have even struck the light poles and the Pentagon.


What gives ?
This is another piece of the over all story that just doesn't add up.

All conflicting stories 911 aside though, and to avoid another pi$$ing match.

The fact of the matter is, As well as having have had our Constitution usurped by the Patriot Act.
We are STILL fighting two wars in the middle east as a result of the events on 9/11 which were proven to have been unrelated OR of no significance.

And 8 years later and we still haven't resolved these conflicts and are increasing our spending limits year after year ?

So all in all, in looking at the much bigger picture. One can trace the money, and who benefited the most from the events of 9/11.

It is quite apparent to me that the entire story and events of 9/11 were constructed by a collaborative Mossad and CIA Black operation, used to gain support of the US population against Israel's and the Banking Cartel's enemy, muslims, as well as to gain control of the oil rich middle east instead of the Russians.

Remember that historically, the Banking Cartel has financed all of the US wars in history. Our current war on terror included.

Following the money back to Israel, even our director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, had a dual Israeli/US citizenship and during his US Senate confirmation hearing with 98-0 approval, was never questioned about this ?

And post 9/11 Michael Chertoff, was instrumental in allowing the Mossad agents captured in the US to return to Israel with all charges dropped ?

Give me a Break !



The Truth Shall Set You Free




www.rense.com...

reply to post by seethelight


You are the only person on here that I have seen attacking anyone.
Also, I'd like to know WHY you believe that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

As far as the OP, great information. More people with CREDENTIALS coming forward.

It's almost like the people with credentials providing facts get put down by people who do/don't have any credentials who don't give facts. To me, that's talking !@#$ and they all deserve a few missing teeth (YES! violence!).

[edit on 31-1-2010 by sr_robert1]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by WarloriousCreed

 

yeah, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The Pentagon was insanely well built.

The plane managed to go through three rings... which is shocking.

And the French, god bless, are obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Believe them about 9/11 at your own risk.

It was insanely well guarded with survalence cameras too. Amazing how only one captured 'anything' ::cough:: ::cough::.

reply to post by WarloriousCreed


The FBI confiscated film from a total of 80 camera's ,80.

What we got shown was nothing, better CGI in the UFO section.

Where there is smoke, there is fire...
but who had ever heard of nano-thermite until recently?
Here are some links, enjoy.

911research.wtc7.net...
www.journalof911studies.com...
www.ae911truth.org...
home.debitel.net...
www.patriotsquestion911.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
www.thepentacon.com...
world911truth.org...
americansjourney.blogspot.com...
www.bushstole04.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.allvoices.com...
www.oficyna-aurora.pl...

and finally...
www.wnd.com...

No...no conspiracy.

"And as for finding debris at water landings, I would think TWA Flight 800 comes to most peoples' minds. Unfortunately, the debris recovery there is the exception, not the rule. While they did recover 95% of the debris, they did so because they had no clue what happened."

As compared to 9/11, when they knew exactly what happened? Is that what you're saying?

How can you know exactly what happened if you do not collect as much evidence as possible and do a thorough and complete investigation? The only way you can know exactly what happened without a comprehensive investigation is if you perpetrated the crime.

Friend of mine was on the interstate next to the pentagon with his sunroof open... just before he HEARD the impact he HEARD a high pitched whine of a single jet engine)- said sounding like a cruise missile..not like a commercial jet, which we hear all the time in N. Arlington Virginia..

a few minutes later I saw the smoke from the blast east of my office window in arlington, the winds were out of the south that day, I later sold my home in Alington and left the area, as I believe that when enough people realize the extent of the betrayal by the Federal government, it will not be a good a place to live...

[edit on 31-1-2010 by seataka]

reply to post by WarloriousCreed


Hey Warlorius Creed! I have seen the Aaron Russo interview and personally believe he is being honest. The story he told is pretty wild but considering he was dying of cancer while the video was recorded I don't think he had much reason to lie.

Originally posted by electricveins
reply to post by WarloriousCreed

 

Hey Warlorius Creed! I have seen the Aaron Russo interview and personally believe he is being honest. The story he told is pretty wild but considering he was dying of cancer while the video was recorded I don't think he had much reason to lie.

Neither did Dr Werner Von Braun, in his death bed message, where he predicted every boogieman this laughable-if-it-were-not-such-an-injustice-Federal-government has contrived since 1977.. LINK to Death Bed Testimony of Dr Werner Von Braun

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
As compared to 9/11, when they knew exactly what happened? Is that what you're saying?

No.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How can you know exactly what happened if you do not collect as much evidence as possible and do a thorough and complete investigation? The only way you can know exactly what happened without a comprehensive investigation is if you perpetrated the crime.

The point about TWA 800 was meant to talk about how water landings are extraordinary cases of already extraordinary events, when someone mentioned the fact that the pictures didn't show much debris.

I never once made a claim about how much debris they found at the Pentagon. Others did, but then in reference only to the photo. In fact, I couldn't quickly find a source that stated exactly how much debris they collected from the Pentagon, so I kept my mouth shut. If I had to guess, I would say they found most of it.

You're jumping to conclusions in any case. You can make a reasonable inference about an event without a truly comprehensive investigation. For example: Every oak tree I have seen in my life has it's seeds in a nut called an acorn. I know that beech trees are closely related to oak trees. I could therefore, without ever seeing a beech tree, make an inference that it probably has acorn-like nuts as well. It wouldn't, of course, be a good idea to extend that to other plants; I couldn't very well say that because oaks and cacti are plants they both have acorns as nuts.