911 - U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS about Pentagon

 http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html#McIntyre

U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS about Pentagon
 --------------------------------------------------
Steve DeChiaro – Pentagon survivor.  Founder of DSCI, a defense contractor.  Mr. DeChiaro was walking into the Pentagon's south parking lot entrance when the Pentagon was hit on 9/11. He immediately went to the impact area and started evacuating the injured and the dying.  For his heroic efforts that day, Mr. DeChiaro was awarded the Medal of Valor, the Defense Department's highest civilian award for courage and valor.

• Article 8/1/02: "Instead of following the streams of people away from the Pentagon, Steve DeChiaro ran toward the smoke.
  
  As he reached the west side of the building he saw a light post bent in half.
  
  "But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing." http://web.archive.org

---------------------------------------------

Barbara Honegger, MS – Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Defense's advanced science, technology and national security affairs university (1995 - present).  Graduate of the Naval War College master's program in National Security Decision Making (2001).  Former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1981 - 1983).

Former Director of the Attorney General's Anti-Discrimination Law Review, U.S. Department of Justice (1982 - 1983).   Author of the pioneering Irangate expose October Surprise (1989).  Author of the chapter "The Pentagon Attack Papers" included in The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty by Jim Marrs (2006). 

• Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
  
  "Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
  
  They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.
  
  Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.
  
  We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.
  
  We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media."


• Contributing author to The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty 9/6/06:  "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 280−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." 
•  http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

 -------------------------------------------------------

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984, commanding 15,000 intelligence and security personnel.  Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. 

• Video interview 6/28/09:
  
  General Stubblebine : I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …
  
  I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …
  
  So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
  
  Interviewer : OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?
  
  General Stubblebine :  I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.
  
  Interviewer :  What made you believe that?
  
  General Stubblebine :  Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
  
  One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. …
  
  I did -- I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it -- NO WAY! …
  
  We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
  
  Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -- what certainly the -- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. …
  
  When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E



• Video documentary One Nation Under Siege 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War.  I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.undersiegemovie.com

--------------------------------------------

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director.  Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam.  Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.  Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years).  Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years).  Private pilot.

• Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire.  Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed.  Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon?  If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.
  
  Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control.  No way!  With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!
  
  Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".
  
  Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth.  It seems, "Something is rotten in the State."

------------------------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.  Retired commercial pilot.  Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.  Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777.  30,000+ total hours flown.  Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

• Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.  And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.  I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."  http://americanbuddhist.net


• Article 7/17/05:  "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… 
  
  "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com


• Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon.  "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.  The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...
  
  It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane.  And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.  There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77.  We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."  http://911underground.com

------------------------------------

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project.  30-year Army career. Instructor, undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, emergency management. Staff physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for 19 years. 

• Article 8/19/05:
  
  Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile.  And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."   http://www.rense.com



• Speech The Science and Politics of 9/11 Conference, Madison, WI 8/5/07
  
  "When we blew up the World Trade Center - I want to repeat, that it was deliberately blown up. The aircraft definitely hit the sucker. There were definite explosions inside the thing. You talk to Willie Rodriguez, you talk to the police and the fire, my guys - no two ways about it. It's on the radio communications. Everything else out there. It happened. The Pentagon, same thing. No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn't make the turns with a 757. You couldn't fly it in over the highway. You couldn't fly it over the light poles. You couldn't even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence." http://www.snowshoefilms.com/filmmakersnb140.html

-----------------------------------------------

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot.  Aerospace engineer.  Currently Captain at a major airline.  Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch.  Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber.  Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.  Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.  Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals.  20-year Air Force career. 

• Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07:  Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:
  " After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories;  between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information.  And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11.  And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ...
  
  The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that  would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.]  Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...
  You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon.  So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area.  [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.]  But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording.  Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
  
  The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission.  There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder.  And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there.  [The film he refers to is Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ...
  
  And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found.  And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." http://video.google.com
  

----------------------------------------

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot.  Commercial aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727.  7,500 total commercial hours flown. Retired Civil Engineer.  Retired Naval aviator.  Military aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.  3,800 total military hours flown.

• Interview Alex Jones Show 4/11/07:
  Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim -- go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon ...
  
  Commander Muga:   The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet.  And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult.  And it would take considerable training.  In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers.  And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
  
  When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall.  And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation.  I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.  
  
  And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...
  
  I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757.  And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
  
  And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code.  There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked.  It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over.  And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...
  
  Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines.  And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there.  And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." Appears half way through the second hour segment at http://www.realradioarchives.com

------------------------------------

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career.  Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University.  Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System.  Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).

• Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06:  Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.  "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
  
  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 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. 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". ...
  
  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. ...
  
  More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
  -----------------------------------