Military Professionals Dispute 911

reply to post by conar


I am a Combat Experienced Veteran that fought in the Iraqi Invasion. I do not think that I would have liked a letter from Mark Dice.

It is not the place, or the time for an 'awakening'. I had a complete mental breakdown from all 'the stuff' (like that Aaron Russo testimony I posted) thats out there a year ago. Stuff like what Mark Dice is talking about.

I dont think I can agree with what Mark Dice is doing, however I can agree with some things he was saying.

As a former Marine, that knows several Marines (obviously) I can tell you that we already knew/know that the war is over oil (money). Some Marines (some of them atleast) know that the whole Bin Laden 'terror structure' is a lie because they caught the guys they were sent after... guys that were supposedly at the very top... then they had to hand them over to ISI or whatever the Pakistani Intelligence group is called... and then ISI let them go... This stuff gets spread around, also stuff that never even makes it onto ATS is common knowledge to a lot of Marines. But I heard out of Marines mouth's that were in Afghanistan that this was happening. They said it was like they were not supposed to catch the people they were sent after (like all they wanted was a never ending war, like what Aaron Russo talks about in his full video)

We knew, some of us atleast, that the whole war on terror was a lie (after the fact). We could tell because there werent the caves in the afghan mountains full of terrorists like Rhumsfield talked about. There werent any WMD's, there was no Bin Laden to be found and so forth. Let me get this straight, these were my opinions, our opinions. They dont have to be facts, so don't eat me alive for stating my opinions/viewpoints/perspectives.

Yea 'soldiers'... some of them are waking up. But they cant just 'quit', and they can't do anything like what Dice seems to think they can do. As a matter of fact there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about what is going on in politics, or especially change what the military is doing. So leave the soldiers over in war alone. To do otherwise is psychological warfare. I would be pissed to get something like Zeitgeist, or anything like that in the mail (yea they all have mini dvd players).

I don't think anyone should be targeted with this 'information'. Even if it was all 100% true (and then especially in that instance) its psychological warfare. It is. It is not something all of us can handle. We killed innocent civilians in Iraq (obviously they were accidents that were mourned), and so for me to think that 9-11 was a complete sham to trick me into enlisting... to justify going to Afghanistan.. then the WMD's were a complete sham to trick me into getting motivated to take out Saddam and in the process killing innocent people while going after the -badguys-... that WMD's was just a crying of wolves to justify an invasion... that americans were sitty pretty making money off of what we were doing in Iraq... making money off the direct act of killing and being killed. Do you understand the enormity of what a soldier has to psychologically overcome to wrap their heads around what is being proposed and then swallow that pill?

Escuse me if this does not fit the bill of what I am supposed to be talking about.


[edit on 31-1-2010 by WarloriousCreed]

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Please keep all comments focused on the information provided, not one another.

double post


[edit on 31-1-2010 by WarloriousCreed]

reply to post by richierich


you wanna see them?

bauer.imgur.com...

There's one... see how those cars are all burned and the bottom of the wall is destroyed?

That's the point of impact of the left wing


And here's the point of impact of the right wing:

bauer.imgur.com...

The trick is this... the walls are scorched for meters on either side of the hole... and the whole breached three rings of the building...

what missile does that?

The answer?

There's no missile that would cause ALL of the seen exterior damage AND punch so deep into the building...

Snip

missiles either punch in, then explode, or explode on contact.

They certainly don't do both.


[Mod Edit- removed sarcasm]



[edit on 31/1/2010 by Sauron]

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."

You are not alone in your thinking about the Pentagon crash sir.
Many people have questioned the same, you may even have seen this
lady on the scene as well.

No one is blaming the troops abroad.
You guys are doing your jobs, YOU HAVE TOO,

whatever reason brought you guys to the wars, their is a war happening.

This Generation is not like the 60's , where the troops were targeted

for disdain, people are smarter now,

We realize that the prob is the MONEY MEN... Politicans

Originally posted by seethelight
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

So I'm a traitor now huh?

Hey air force guy, you gonna tell him to mind his tone and be more professional?




That's what I thought.

I was talking about you being a professional in the context of a 'spinner'. If you were talking to me... I am a Combat Experienced Veteran of the USMC... big difference.

And about the whole thing about you seeing wing damage at the Pentagon...


In a group therapy session I met this guy that was at the Pentagon scene 5 minutes after the 'event'. He was a Marine and they were on a run. What he had to say put me into denial (a defense mechanism) at the time. I called him a liar, I just spat it out (yea in the middle of the session while he was talking about it). But then I got on the internet and started looking at pictures, and reading testimonies... I couldn't believe it, it actually did almost seem like a cruise missile. But I am no professional. Not a theorist either. Just a little surprised is all.

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:

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).

Commander Ralph Kolstad, US Navy (ret)
Retired Fighter Pilot (Top Gun) 20 year Navy Career
Former Air Combat Instructor
Retired Commercial Pilot 27 years exp 727 757 767

"At the Pentagon , the Pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6000
hours of flight time in 757's and 767's , and I could not have flown it the way the
flight path was described."

"I could not have done what these beginner's did. Something stinks to high heaven."
. patriotsquestion911.com...

Well she and others on the scene felt strong enough to put their
Names and Careers on the line. These were her words , not mine.

Read the quote above, and look at his creditals .

Where are all of the pictures of the pentagon durring the time before they collapsed?

A French guy told me that on the news in France they showed a 'little hole' and talked about how a plane could not have fit in it, WITHOUT THE WINGS. 'The wings' was just another issue. He said it was common knowledge that the news in the US of A was not telling truth/whole truth.

Again I am not a 9-11 truther, or part of the Zeitgeist movement. I am just struggling with all of this compelling evidence that criticizes US news especially, and the 'official story'. Listen, a guy broke down crying about how a cruise missle hit the Pentagon, I called him a liar, then went out and found pictures of a hole ... with no friggin wing marks. It was like I ran into a brick wall.

Its amazing how one of 'those planes' pack enough 'punch' to take down two of the toughest towers in the world... yet they cant even do wing damange!? not only that but didnt they find a passport of one of the 'hijackers'? So the fire was hot enough to burn the plane into nothing... yet leave behind a paper passport?

reply to post by Sean48


Nice thread.....but guys this started way before 911. Google news footage from the Oklahoma City bombing and you will see that there were bombs in the building...go to 1:10 of the video...

www.youtube.com...

On the right side there are other news clips of that day. The next day, the government sanitized all news and everyone thinks that a yellow Ryder truck did that damage.

What is happening to this country on an almost daily basis, has been planned out for along time. Everything is being set up (TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act etc...) to be used against we, the people.

= Destruction By Design

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.

Originally posted by Sean48
Well she and others on the scene felt strong enough to put their
Names and Careers on the line. These were her words , not mine.

Read the quote above, and look at his creditals .

You say they're putting their Names and Careers on the line. This would imply that the US Armed Forces are not subject to the same freedom of speech as anyone else who would make claims regarding the events of 9/11 that some might not agree with. While there are definitely some things in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that prevent them from saying certain things, this is not one of them.

And I read that quote. Along with all the others. My only thought on that particular quote is that the hijackers were not attempting to fly the plane, they were attempting to crash it, which means they would not be attempting maneuvers that a normal pilot of an aircraft that size would. They wouldn't care about things such as keeping the turns low-G. Once they were basically at the Pentagon, keeping the plane in the air wouldn't be much of an issue, so maneuvers that would otherwise cause the plane to stall wouldn't be out of the question.

Having some experience with commercial (small) aircraft insurance, if you think these kinds of crashes are not believable, you have no idea what kinds of things people do with planes.

reply to post by custom2006


This is Bob Kerry

One of the 911 Commisioner's , fast forward the vid to about 6 min mark

He says 911 was a 30 year conspiracy

reply to post by sciemus


Personally, when you have thousands of professional pilots and architects & engineers + the aforementioned military personnel saying this entire event could not have happened the way we are being told, I will side with the professionals who do not have an agenda and actually know how planes operate and buildings are built etc...unlike our government...

www.ae911truth.org...

pilotsfor911truth.org...

www.youtube.com...


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda under Adolf Hiler - 1933-45

Originally posted by seethelight
The Pentagon was insanely well built.

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

The Pentagon, despite an ongoing renovation at the time, was built to the accepted standards of the 1940s. The pre-Atomic 1940s.

The architectural review before the renovation found that most of the structural supports, with the exception of the fifth floor, generally exceeded the standards from the 1940s. However, these old standards, as well as the new ones, were looking for a building that could keep standing under normal conditions, with normal conditions including being in an area without seismic activity. I think, by anyone's standards, a plane, missile, or whatever impacting the side of a building that is not a purpose-built bunker is not normal conditions.

The independent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers is freely available here and includes all I've talked about, along with full references: fire.nist.gov...

The Pentagon was a silly-shaped office building, not a bunker. The bunker, by the way, was at the Greenbrier Hotel not too far down the road.

reply to post by sciemus


You realize that those pictures (all pictures around about the Pentagon attack) show only like.....5% of the plane wreckage, right?

To say that those are enough to think that there was an aircraft accident in that location is simply....nonsense.

Even in a water landing/crash you find more debris than the ones they found in the Pentagon.

Originally posted by custom2006
Personally, when you have thousands of professional pilots and architects & engineers + the aforementioned military personnel saying this entire event could not have happened the way we are being told, I will side with the professionals who do not have an agenda and actually know how planes operate and buildings are built etc...unlike our government...

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.

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.

It is funny that "truther" is considered a derogatory term by some people. I don't get it, shouldn't we ALL be truthers, insisting on the truth?
The false flag that was 911 was not executed flawlessly, but pretty impressive nonetheless. I guess years and years of planning paid off. At least in the short run.
Like most people in the world, I bought into the "programming"...I had not yet realized that something was very wrong in our country. I know now.
I cannot (even if I wanted to) undo the knowledge I have gained by studying multiple and credible sites that are dedicated to the TRUTH. It takes time to put the puzzle together, but it all starts to make a lot of sense when the picture starts to near completion.

A point. If ten people tell you a crime has been committed, but one of them is a lunatic that believes he can walk through walls, do you discard the testimony of the other 9 as well?
How about the other tens of thousands....

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by sciemus

 

You realize that those pictures (all pictures around about the Pentagon attack) show only like.....5% of the plane wreckage, right?

To say that those are enough to think that there was an aircraft accident in that location is simply....nonsense.

Even in a water landing/crash you find more debris than the ones they found in the Pentagon.

The pictures should make it obvious that firstly, there was evidence recovery on-going at the time. The only timing claim I made was on the very last photo. As the fires were out, one can safely assume that some time had passed.

And it's true that you can only see a very little bit of the wreckage. But if a plane crashed into the building and penetrated some distance in, that most of the debris would be inside the building? Hence under piles of rubble?

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. Further, most water landings/crashes happen over shallow water, making debris recovery "easy". Finally, commercial airline crashes are so uncommon that making sweeping claims about how they are "supposed" to occur is a little hasty.