9/11 REVISITED AND QUESTIONED, Summarized from www.patriotsquestion911.com.


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency ~ "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...There was a derth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slamed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ 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 was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the 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 0r 40 minutes, with the roof 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 have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon " Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS ~ "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11...A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high-speed 270-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building...Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system"


Source: http://www.newsfollowup.com/flight77_24.htm

Pentagon anti-aircraft missile batteries? 'friendly' signal?

If such things existed and operated that way it could be problematic...

Karen sure says strange stuff considering her resume... :huh:

In her defense, commercial airlines do possess and utilize an IFF ( Identify Friend or Foe ) signal.

It is an interesting person, look at the external links on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski

A lot of insider information from the Pentagon ;)

If commercial airlines posses IFF, why does she claim only the military has it? Kind of makes her sound like a moonbat.

I'm a USAF veteran and FAA Air Traffic Controler.

This person is crazy. It's been debunked...why do you guys even post crap like this here?

For example, the 330 degree turn (not 270) is standard for a commercial rated pilot in an attempt to lose altitude. It's almost piloting 101.

Second, there were NO missiles at the Pentagon. Fact.

No one has EVER been able to dispute this without just repeating the same old lies over and over again which seems to be a truther tactic...

http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile...he_Pentagon.pdf

Do you really have to put it like that?

By the way, what was your security clearance level that you know what the defense at the Pentagon was like?

That might suggest it was a military drone instead of a commercial airliner, but also transmitting AA77 flight data information by a duplicated transponder.

Raven, read the link above that I provided and then tell me there were missiles at the Pentagon.

Honestly, it doesnt really suggest that at all...

Where do you think that lady heard about the (automated??) Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries? Where do you think she heard about the rest of the stuff?

AFAIK flight 77 was never practically identified as a 'Foe' so its completely irrelevant. Even if there was a 'friendly/ennemy' signal, the decision to switch 77 from one to another would have had to be made by a human, so again the technicalities are irrelevant here...

You would expect someone like her to have a better understanding of the defense systems at the Pentagon, or at least have the access or the connections to find out for sure. Where does she take her information? Rense?

That's not helping us in any shape or form... when I look at her impressive title I expect to hear tough questions based on facts.

I couldn't care less about her expressing displeasure in a general fashion.. especially if part of the stuff that makes her unhappy doesnt even exist.

It's fact there were batteries in Washington D. C. as close as 12 miles out, of course then it's plausible that she may not be lying due to national secrecy and all that stuff.

Of course the capital and the nation's military nervecentre wasn't protected by anti-aircraft-missiles. Only the hotel Bush spent the night before 9/11 in was...


And of course NORAD could only response to threats from the outside, once an enemy aircraft or bomber passed the border, it could do whatever it wanted to do, it was vogelfrei (I like the double-meaning of this word in German language regarding this issue: it means free like a bird and outlawed at the same time).


If anyone would have stated before 9/11 that the US defense depends on the willingness of enemies never to cross the border, and that there would be no protection to the Pentagon and Washington DC against air attacks (despite a handfull fighters who weren't able to protect the Pentagon, etc. by just circling over it and therefore guarding its air space), would have been ridiculed and laughed out.

But after 9/11, it makes so much sense, doesn't it?

And no, I'm not an USAF veteran, but I'm sure that common sense isn't limited to them...:rolleyes:

Nobody is saying the Pentagon was/is defenseless..

Just read the 2 last sentences in the OP.

Using clear words: the first sentence doesnt make sense, and in my opinion she was just talking through her arse.

the second sentence makes sense.. but is she still talking through her arse? Its now unclear at that point.

End of story.

Well I guess I am the president of the United States, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!
-Dubya

There is no defense for the Official incompetence/coverup/complicity even if there were missle batteries ready to fire from her arse! I guess that is why everything she attempts to say becomes MISSLEANUS (Miscellaneous) and off target, but her aim was to suggest complicity and she was a witness 2 min after the hit. So treat it like any other type of witness account just don't discredit what she saw and is trying to say because she attempts to disclose classified info and may have her facts arse-backwards. :lol:

It appears you may be confusing two different systems.

Commercial airliners are equipped with transponders that transmit identifying information in a particular mode that can be received by military IFF/SIF systems.

Military aircraft equipped with IFF/SIF transponders have the ability to transmit
in additional classified modes identifying an aircraft as Friend or Foe.

The military has an operational requirement to positively identify an aircraft
as friend or foe. The only way to do that positively is to provide a classified code that only a friend would have access to. Civilian airliners are not equipped with the transponders necessary for that task and civilian pilots do not have access to the classified codes.

Racer, I should have pointed this out. This wasn't a response to you or to what
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski stated.

It was in response to Calcas' statement that there were no anti-aircraft missiles to protect the Pentagon.

Of course there weren't, the only anti-aircraft-missiles the US possesses were on the roof of a hotel in Florida. ;)

OK, so I read the article you posted. All it does is try to debunk other people's claims as to what the defense was at the Pentagon, while not giving any thought as to what the defense system might actually be. Pretty lame.

So, my question still stands. What was your security clearance level that you know what the defense at the Pentagon was like?

Yes, of course. ;)