U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didn't make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy's Top Gun' air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun' adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!'

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings' Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident' Where is all the luggage' Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft' Where are the steel engine parts' Where is the steel landing gear' Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces'?

But no major element of the official account of 9/11 is spared from Commander Kolstad's criticism. Regarding the alleged impact site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA, he asks, Where is any of the wreckage' Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane' Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel' Where is any evidence at all'?

Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767' Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767' The evidence just doesn't add up."

"Why did the second building collapse before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, especially when the second one hit was just a glancing blow' If the fire was so hot, then why were people looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas' Why have so many members of the New York Fire Department reported seeing or hearing many explosions' before the buildings collapsed'?

Commander Kolstad summarized his frustration with the investigation and disbelief of the official account of 9/11, If one were to act as an accident investigator, one would look at the evidence, and then construct a plausible scenario as to what led to the accident. In this case, we were told the story and then the evidence was built to support the story. What happened to any intelligent investigation' Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don't believe the official story' and why I want the truth to be told.?

Commander Kolstad is just one of the many military and commercial pilots who have publicly expressed serious concerns about the official account of 9/11. Statements from more than 30 other pilots are available at

formatting link

formatting link

Find out watch Alex Jones's Terrorstorm

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Loading thread data ...

I'm sure videos of the jets hitting the towers was filmed in the same studio they faked the moon landings in. I'm sure I saw some moonbats in there somewhere....


Reply to

No one disputes the buildings were hit. What is in dispute is why they came down.

Reply to

Whoever does not understand that, has no grasp of how the building's load paths worked, or how the laws of physics work.

Either that, or they prefer to ignore the facts, because it fits into their vision of the world, better.

I suspect that it is a good bit of the first with a whole lot more of the second.

Reply to

The message from "Jim" contains these words:

Unlike many European structures the towers relied on the outer part of the structure to take the loads and once this was compromised the integrity of the whole structure was lost, a good example is the tower at Mont Pennass(sp) in Paris which was constructed in the early/mid 70's with a steel re-enforced concrete core column containing the lift shafts etc which if hit in the same way as the Trade Centre would in all probability stay upright. I was in this tower last week and the lift travels from ground level to

700 feet in 30 seconds flat then you can get out and walk up to the Heli-pad at a hight of 725 feet with an unobstructed view of all of Paris, it is open to the public and the Heli-pad is on a level with the top of the Eiffel Tower because the Mont stands on higher ground,

regards, Terry

Reply to
Terence Lynock (MSW)

I find that interesting, and thus, this thread is redeemed. Thanks Terry. mk

Reply to

I'm not much of a "conspiracy theory" kind of guy, but I must say I definitely noticed a lack of aircraft debris at the Pentagon, where the damage was very localized. It looked more like a cruise missile hit it. I'm not saying that's what I believe happened. I'm just thinking about all the photos I've seen in the news over the years of jetliner crashes. There ususually IS a huge chunk of the tail left in one piece. Not always, though. Didn't one go down at a high rate of speed in a big swamp in Florida and get completely reduced to little bits?

I will add that I don't have much faith in the honesty of our government.

Stay sharp, desmobob

Reply to
Robert Scott

I'm not usually a conspiracy type either, but I still have doubts about the "official" stories of the deaths of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Marilyn Monroe. Yet having seen the video of Bush's reaction when he was told about the World Trade center, I find it hard to believe that he knew in advance - he's just not that good an actor. As for the lack of debris at the Pentagon, I understand that a lot of it followed the fuselage into the building.

Reply to


On the other hand..... Newton might have been in on the conspiracy.



Reply to

You mean the ValueJet DC-9?? aka Alligator value meal deal

Dug a hole in solid limestone under the Florida swamp and sucked most of it into the hole.

Human bodies and airplanes aren't so pretty after a high speed impact into most anything. Real unpretty if you ever have had to clean up one.


Robert Scott wrote:

Reply to
Hugh Prescott

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.