Military Professionals Dispute 911

This is an amazing thread.. I appreciate you bringing this topic to our attention. It is wonderful to see people looking for answers.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
Did he get them from the internet, or solely from the internet? Sure Stubblebine is an old man, but does that preclude him from having an expert opinion? and what about the others? the trouble is that there are "photographic" anomalies at the Pentagaon, Shanksville, and building seven and all with witnesses with contradicting stories to the "official version" yes, and it is confusing to most of us who are not experts in any field, yet always in anything to do with 9/11 there are posters who tell us to put up and shut up, without one trace of a backup of evidence to explain the anomalies except to say that the official story is true and unexpurgated, when even members of the poverty starved 9/11 commission didn't believe all they were told, while millions was spent elsewhere on CGI to demonstrate how there was a mundane reason for building collapse. Many of the posters in these 9/11 threads who use the put up and shut up lines, will also say somewhere down the way, yeah of course the government lies, all governments lie get over it" and all the while perpetuating the "official story" Oh well, people don't matter just the story.

reply to post by Sean48

He is the EXPERT, Military Trained.

So am I, as well as several other OS supporters.

Colonel Nelson, may indeed have been an expert in accident investigations. However, without him being present at the Pentagon site, he is not qualified to rule on what did or did not hit the Pentagon. All he can do is offer his opinion (like the rest of us). But for him to say there wasnt an airliner, when so many of the pictures DO show wreckage of an airliner (as do the reports from the people on the scene) calls into question his....experience.

REPLY TO SWAMPFOX

Lt Col. Karen U Kwiatkowski PHd US Air Force

Political Military Affairs , Office of Secrectary of Defense

'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."

This lady was on the scene .

Is this what you needed .

reply to post by Sean48


Not to make this go in a complete circle, but this has been being discussed since page 3, if anyone is interested.

Starts here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Sean48

Is this what you needed

Nope. For reasons I am not going to get into on a public discussion board, I wouldnt trust her if she said the sky was blue.

reply to post by sciemus


I think you are asking why I brought that forward?

Swamp disregarded the Col Gen , because he "wasn't there"

Thought I would let him address some who was , it was relevant .

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by sciemus

 

I think you are asking why I brought that forward?

Swamp disregarded the Col Gen , because he "wasn't there"

Thought I would let him address some who was , it was relevant .

No, I wasn't really asking anything about it. It is relevant. I just didn't know where Swamp came in, and if they wanted to get caught up I was giving them a quick in.

I find the testimony of Lt Col. Karen U Kwiatkowski compelling and it matches that of several other witnesses who were early at the scene.

Sciemus countering "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," is just absurd. Kwiatkowski should have ignored what her eyes were telling her until something more compatible with the OS appeared on the internet?

Swampfox - if you want us to believe this woman is either wilfully lying or a fantasist, you'll have to do better. You don't usually resist public character assassinations of those you wish to discredit. For the record - if you told me the sky was blue, I would make sure to check it.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Nope. For reasons I am not going to get into on a public discussion board, I wouldnt trust her if she said the sky was blue.

Does that mean your reasons for not trusting her aren't civil/decent/reasonable?

Because if they were I'm sure they would be fair game for public discussion.




Btw the sky is not always blue.

So you guys have perfectly good reason to doubt each other on that point.


Critical thinking please!

[edit on 31-1-2010 by bsbray11]

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

Kwiatkowski has an extremely deep rooted and hyper visceral hatred of President Bush, so I am not surprised in the least that she is taking the side of those who would blame Bush for the events of 9/11. The problem with this is that she is about as far away from being an unbiased source of information as there can be. Her position and claims are to be expected and are really based on her hatred of Bush rather than based on reality.

I would also submit that others on this list of "military professionals" have a similar distaste of President Bush, rendering their opinions slanted and biased, as well. The remaining members of this group, especially if they belong to a proven intellectually challenged group like Pilots for 9/11 Truth are simply not worth listening to based on their lack of critical thinking skills, aeronautical acumen and/or ability to discern logic from BS.

reply to post by EvilAxis

Swampfox - if you want us to believe this woman is either wilfully lying or a fantasist, you'll have to do better. You don't usually resist public character assassinations of those you wish to discredit. For the record - if you told me the sky was blue, I would make sure to check it

I've made it no secret that I had friends (as well as people I would throw an anchor to, if they were drowning) at the Pentagon that day, and in the weeks after the attack. That is all I am going to say about the the lady in question.

Now, if I wanted to assainate her character, expressing my distrust of the words coming from her mouth is the last way I would do it.

reply to post by bsbray11

Does that mean your reasons for not trusting her aren't civil/decent/reasonable?

No, it means I am not going to discuss it on a public discussion board you dont have the right (or need) to know. In a military courtroom, yes, OSI conference room, yes, military briefing room, yes, online discussion board, nope.

Originally posted by EvilAxis
I find the testimony of Lt Col. Karen U Kwiatkowski compelling and it matches that of several other witnesses who were early at the scene.

The problem with this is that for every person who has said it was not a jet that hit the Pentagon, there are multiple others who have said that it most definitely was.

There is also the video evidence, which isn't entirely conclusive. But there's the evidence from air traffic controllers, who never lost Flight 77 on their radar. There's also the physical evidence from passengers on the plane, from burnt but not unidentifiable bodies of Flight 77 passengers, to a partially burnt luggage tag and wedding ring belonging to the same passenger.

If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, someone went to an awful amount of trouble to make it look like it did.

reply to post by Sean48

Swamp disregarded the Col Gen

BTW, what is a Col Gen in regards to the USAF? Because I wasn't aware we were discussing the Soviet Air Force.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, it means I am not going to discuss it on a public discussion board you dont have the right (or need) to know. In a military courtroom, yes, OSI conference room, yes, military briefing room, yes, online discussion board, nope.

Well that's just a slap in the face isn't it?

The funny thing about keeping information from people, is that they stop trusting you. If they trusted you to begin with that is.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

Swamp disregarded the Col Gen

BTW, what is a Col Gen in regards to the USAF? Because I wasn't aware we were discussing the Soviet Air Force.

You got me ... victory for you.

I guess you need 1 after all

Major general

What the hell is the difference, you can't dispute him , or his credentials ,

so you make up BS excuses, Time to take the blinders off and grow up

reply to post by Sean48


I can, and have, disputed those two officers on ATS, many times. The evidence, just does not begin to support their conclusions. Whether you accept that or not, is not my problem.

So, to you, I say grow up and take YOUR blinders off...or pull your head out of the sand...whichever fits.

reply to post by bsbray11

Well that's just a slap in the face isn't it?

I dont have to justify to you, why I do not trust that woman.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I dont have to justify to you, why I do not trust that woman.

I don't care. I don't have to believe you actually have a legitimate reason, either, and I tend not to.

Everything works out.