IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
There's No Independent Verifiable Evidence For A Missile At The Pentagon, if you disagree please post evidence here

Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 25 2009, 12:28 AM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



The work of CIT has thoroughly debunked the missile theories.

We feel strongly that it's important for people to drop speculation and to focus on only hard evidence if we want the movement to progress.

We present only hard evidence proving the plane did not hit the building on 9/11.

Unfortunately there are people who still feel the need to discuss missile speculation which reduces the efforts of the truth movement to conspiracy theory.

I believe there is absolutely zero independent verifiable direct evidence for a missile and that this theory is extremely harmful to the movement as much as no planes at WTC if not more.

Naturally I am always open for evidence so if anybody knows of any feel free to post it here.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 25 2009, 12:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Feb 25 2009, 04:10 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



What caused the damage to the top of the gen-set trailer? Aluminum wing? No. Pre-staged? Maybe. Certainly not a fly-over. What caused the fence in front of the gen-set to flatten towards the supposed flight path of AA77 fly over or impact? Do not dismiss everyone else in the "missile" might have happened category so quickly. A tip of the hat to you and the CIT for your diligent work at and around the Pentagon, you have done some great work. The P4T team has also done extrodinary work on showing the falsification on the flight data recorder for AA77. You are absoulutly convinced there was no missile. I have not been convinced of this fact, a fly over of course it is a great possibility. I in fact posted that an America West had N644AW land at Reagan Int. across from the Pentagon at 09:39 on 9/11/01. I like you only want to find out the real truth, until then you can not shut the door on any possible event unless you were there. I do not wish to create any discord within this group as I have found this to be the most level headed discussion and research board to date. If you feel I am out of line slap me one and I'll take my lumps and move on.
Randy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 25 2009, 09:30 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Feb 23 2009, 06:10 AM) *
What caused the damage to the top of the gen-set trailer? Aluminum wing? No. Pre-staged? Maybe. Certainly not a fly-over. What caused the fence in front of the gen-set to flatten towards the supposed flight path of AA77 fly over or impact? Do not dismiss everyone else in the "missile" might have happened category so quickly. A tip of the hat to you and the CIT for your diligent work at and around the Pentagon, you have done some great work. The P4T team has also done extrodinary work on showing the falsification on the flight data recorder for AA77. You are absoulutly convinced there was no missile. I have not been convinced of this fact, a fly over of course it is a great possibility. I in fact posted that an America West had N644AW land at Reagan Int. across from the Pentagon at 09:39 on 9/11/01. I like you only want to find out the real truth, until then you can not shut the door on any possible event unless you were there. I do not wish to create any discord within this group as I have found this to be the most level headed discussion and research board to date. If you feel I am out of line slap me one and I'll take my lumps and move on.
Randy.


what he said ...with a few caveats.

-NIST stated for example that there was no evidence of explosives (doesn't mean there weren't any)
-various Christian denominations berate/chide each other (missing the forest from the trees)
-theories come and go...if there is no data disproving a theory, then it is still a 'good' theory

i'm not sure the available data proves or disproves the missile theory. i don't find the issue divisive at all. more like one facet of a tapestry or mosaic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 25 2009, 11:41 AM
Post #4





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Feb 25 2009, 09:10 AM) *
I do not wish to create any discord within this group as I have found this to be the most level headed discussion and research board to date. If you feel I am out of line slap me one and I'll take my lumps and move on.
Randy.


Hi Randy,

Thanks for the reply. I know that a lot people still believe in a missile and that is exactly why I created this thread so don't worry about getting "slapped".

What I'm looking for is evidence.

My entire point is that the time has come for us to completely abandon speculation in favor of hard evidence. Can we agree on that?

So....if you can provide evidence for a missile please do, otherwise admit that you are holding on to this notion based on nothing but pure speculation.

Now....as far as the generator trailer goes....there is zero evidence it was hit by a missile but there is direct evidence that they were "in the process" of moving trailers the day prior to the event in the guise of wrapping up the renovation and turning the area back over to the Pentagon.


QUOTE
"This area here is considered the---we call it the lay down area. It's the heliport area, and out there we---we have all the construction trailers. We were in the process right prior to September 11th cleaning out the area. Actually on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building."
page 11


Here are the construction trailers that were there:


So they could have easily moved the generator trailer at an angle during that chaos as if they were preparing to take it out of there and then of course internal pre-planted explosives/incendiaries could have finished the job the next day.




If you look at the final damage to the trailer you can see how it looks like the other side was completely blown out:


Furthermore the rear gouge that has been attributed to the alleged flap track of the wing was clearly not caused by a missile and reeks of pre-fabrication as if it was created with a torch:



Does this photo reveal that the trailer already had the gouge or groove cut into it before 9/11?


We know for a FACT that it couldn't have been caused by a flap track of the wing as many have suggested as I'm sure you'll agree and these scale animated images demonstrate:





The main point is that we have direct evidence for a lot of activity in this area on 9/10/2001 INCLUDING the moving of trailers.

So, as it stands there has been zero independent evidence provided for a missile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 25 2009, 11:49 AM
Post #5





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 25 2009, 02:30 PM) *
i'm not sure the available data proves or disproves the missile theory. i don't find the issue divisive at all. more like one facet of a tapestry or mosaic.


Well it HAS been divisive even if you don't personally consider it such.

That's why all of the important hard evidence we have obtained surrounding the Pentagon attack has been virtually ignored by the movement while people have spent infinitely too much attention on the valid but neutralized controlled demolition debate.

There is no debate when it comes to the Pentagon. You can not neutralize the north side approach evidence or the proof that the NTSB data is fraudulent.

The point here is that there is zero evidence for a missile yet there is plenty of hard evidence proving the plane did not hit.

If we continue to focus on an abstract mosaic we'll never solve the crime.

Especially when we have a crystal clear picture right in front of us revealing what really happened.

It's time to hone our argument and hyper-focus ONLY on the hard evidence proving a deception.

Unless we do that 9/11 will become the next JFK.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 25 2009, 01:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 25 2009, 01:18 PM
Post #6


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks for doing this, Craig.

I think it is interesting that the whole "no plane impact at the Pentagon" has been so divisive for so long. Although we've gained some credibility, there are still many people who don't grasp what we've found and the implications.

The point you're making about staying focused on what we can prove rather than speculating based on little or no evidence is an important one. The evidence we have shows that the Pentagon crime scene was STAGED. Right off the top of my head, this staging includes:
  • An "attack" plane that was seen by many eye witnesses flying low and slow over the Navel Annex and was assumed to have impacted the Pentagon because its approach was timed with an explosive event. However its approach path is inconsistent with other staged physical damage and evidence
  • Downed light poles which could not have been hit by the staged "attack" plane because it was on a different approach path and because it was too high to have hit them
  • A staged damaged taxi whose driver claims that one of the downed light poles pierced his windshield, miraculously doing no harm to either himself or the hood of his car
  • An explosive event that killed many people inside the Pentagon
  • A security camera video that was eventually made public that 1) does NOT clearly show the approach and impact of a large aircraft and 2) seems to indicate that a smaller aircraft or missile approached and impacted fast and level, just a few feet off the ground
  • Released CSV data and NTSB generated animation allegedly from the data allegedly from the FDR allegedly found in the Pentagon allegedly from AA Flt 77 -- none of which holds up to scrutiny or supports other evidence areas.
  • Radar data that appears to have been altered

If I have any of that wrong, or if there is something important left out, please someone make note of it so we can get this firmed up. All of the above is now HIGHLY substantiated and is clear, take it to the judge and jury evidence of a cover-up of what actually happened. And as CIT has pointed out, the weakest link in the chain is Loyd England's account. He is the one person that we can identify as directly implicated at this crime scene.

The point is, the Pentagon "attack" scene was controlled and staged. Yes, there was an explosive event. Yes people were killed. NO it was not what it was made to appear. Someone who is better organized than I am could cull back through the on the scene witness statements to see how many of them were almost immediately interviewed by what they were told were FBI agents at the time. These "interviews" or "debriefings" are always of interest because it allows those whose job it is to control the perception the opportunity to find out what people believe they witnessed and then, subtly and not so subtly, implant "corrections" that will become part of their memory. It really is the old "Jedi mind trick" stuff.

In any case, the point you are making here is that we have NO independent and verifiable evidence for the presence of a missile at the Pentagon. The evidence we DO have is part of the "staging" bundle and can not be trusted because it was and remains under the control of the prime suspect.

Keep up the good work! thumbsup.gif cheers.gif
Reason for edit: Edited for typos and clarity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheri
post Feb 25 2009, 01:27 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 281
Joined: 25-February 09
Member No.: 4,176



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 24 2009, 08:28 PM) *
The work of CIT has thoroughly debunked the missile theories.

We feel strongly that it's important for people to drop speculation and to focus on only hard evidence if we want the movement to progress.

We present only hard evidence proving the plane did not hit the building on 9/11.

Unfortunately there are people who still feel the need to discuss missile speculation which reduces the efforts of the truth movement to conspiracy theory.

I believe there is absolutely zero independent verifiable direct evidence for a missile and that this theory is extremely harmful to the movement as much as no planes at WTC if not more.

Naturally I am always open for evidence so if anybody knows of any feel free to post it here.


I agree, however there is equally no indisputable evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon either. So give people an alternative way of discussing this because unfortunately willy nilly talking about no plane theories and/or missile theories is harmful, but so is saying you don't have an opinion on your own opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 25 2009, 02:15 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Cheri @ Feb 25 2009, 05:27 PM) *
I agree, however there is equally no indisputable evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon either.


Quite true.

But there IS indisputable evidence that there was a plane timed perfectly with the explosion that did NOT hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
So give people an alternative way of discussing this because unfortunately willy nilly talking about no plane theories and/or missile theories is harmful, but so is saying you don't have an opinion on your own opinion.


The point is that it's time now for ALL "opinion", speculation, and "theory" to be dropped.

We are way passed that stage.

We have hard evidence proving the plane did not hit. This is all that matters anymore.

We must focus on hard evidence if we want the movement to progress beyond conspiracy theory.

If people hang on to unproven theories it diverts attention away from the evidence and creates he impression this hasn't been solved.

It has.

We have 100% proof the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 25 2009, 02:22 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (painter @ Feb 25 2009, 05:18 PM) *
The evidence we have shows that the Pentagon crime scene was STAGED.


Exactly.

Once again right on the mark.

Obviously a missile did not cause the damage to the poles.

This scene was staged.

Nobody was looking at the light poles and the taxicab when the missile theory was born.

Now that we have all of this incredible additional evidence proving obvious STAGING there is infinitely less of a case for any type of missile or small plane or anything at all on the south path.

When considering the blatantly staged light pole/cab scene and the fact that we have spoken with so many witnesses who ALL saw one plane on the north path and NOBODY reported ANYTHING on the south path should be all the independent evidence that people need to let go of the missile speculation.

But again, if there was direct EVIDENCE for a missile I would consider this but as it stands none has been provided because none exists.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 25 2009, 02:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Feb 25 2009, 11:47 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (dMole @ Feb 25 2009, 10:02 PM) *
How do we know that the trailer wasn't "done" with explosives? A charge on top of the trailer could blast the roof downwards with its overpressure. Here is a link to IED photos from Iraq:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1152010459055477822RAwJTh


I doubt the 'generator' was really a generator. It would be the perfect place to stash your fireworks for the pyrotechnics part of the show. In the pictures before the collapse, most of the fire is from the 'generator' and other vehicles that were parked next to the building.

Is it possible, that a weapon was fired from short range from the 'generator', to make the big fire ball and the damage to the front wall? It was pointed in exactly the right direction, which is odd for the military types. They usually like to do things neat and straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 26 2009, 12:22 AM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 115
Joined: 11-January 09
Member No.: 4,063



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 24 2009, 08:28 PM) *
The work of CIT has thoroughly debunked the missile theories.

We feel strongly that it's important for people to drop speculation and to focus on only hard evidence if we want the movement to progress.

We present only hard evidence proving the plane did not hit the building on 9/11.

Unfortunately there are people who still feel the need to discuss missile speculation which reduces the efforts of the truth movement to conspiracy theory.

I believe there is absolutely zero independent verifiable direct evidence for a missile and that this theory is extremely harmful to the movement as much as no planes at WTC if not more.

Naturally I am always open for evidence so if anybody knows of any feel free to post it here.


Thank you, Craig for generously providing an opening for further consideration of this issue of missiles.

I have limited computer time and must allow myself, for now, only a more concise post than I would have liked but here is where I am coming from.

The terminal ballistics study I mentioned in the Motive For Flyover thread involved an in depth look into all available evidence for the impact damage (punch in, through wound, and punch out) sustained, from photos and reports. Coupled with a knowledge of penetration mechanics, along with what I trust to be an objective appraisal, I could not see anything other than a penetrator missile causing the damage to target that is in evidence. It is not consistent with merely an internal explosion. There is distinct penetration evidence.

The witness evidence I presented is legitimate and from bona fide witnesses and most supportive of the impact being a missile.

I can follow up on any points later,

Cheers, cheers.gif Saturna.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 26 2009, 12:53 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 115
Joined: 11-January 09
Member No.: 4,063



QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 25 2009, 08:22 PM) *
I can follow up on any points later,

Before, I sign off and while I remember, here's a clip of a piece from AFP (for what it's worth) on the DU issue. Whatever you feel about AFP and Bollyn, the reporting on this issue seems legit to me and seems consistent with other reporting. Even if the planes in question did have DU parts, if no plane hit, and I think we are in agreement on this issue, Craig, then what caused the elevated DU? As I have stated previously, DU evidence would be consistent with the deployment of a Penetrator missile:

QUOTE
Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a “Radalert 50” Geiger counter.

One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.

“That’s pretty high,” Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.

The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and “detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha.” This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor’s Geiger counter.

“The question is, why?” Folkers said.

If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.

“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

Now, I really must fly, pilotfly.gif Catch you later, Saturna
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 01:35 AM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 26 2009, 05:22 AM) *
The terminal ballistics study I mentioned in the Motive For Flyover thread involved an in depth look into all available evidence for the impact damage (punch in, through wound, and punch out) sustained, from photos and reports. Coupled with a knowledge of penetration mechanics, along with what I trust to be an objective appraisal, I could not see anything other than a penetrator missile causing the damage to target that is in evidence. It is not consistent with merely an internal explosion. There is distinct penetration evidence.


I get where you are coming from but this is not evidence, it is your personal speculation based of photographs.

You are talking about the fact that the damage seems to be directional.

Of course the only true photographic evidence indicating this requires you to assume that the damage remains directional between the initial breach in the E-ring and the alleged "exit" hole in the C-ring.



Or else you have to assume that the government commissioned reports, particularly the ASCE Building Performance Report, is 100% valid.



But government provided data and reports are certainly NOT independent and therefore automatically invalid evidence within the context of an investigation into government involvement in the attack.

Agreed?

However even if we assume the reports are accurate and the damage is entirely directional this alone is not even close to being direct evidence for a missile or any type of projectile.

You would have to suggest that it would be impossible for those who run the richest and most powerful defense agency on earth with unlimited, access, control, and resources including all available unknown technology would not have the ability to simulate directional damage of this nature with any combination of any type of weaponry on earth.

Is that really what you believe?

Sorry but I don't see why strategically planted shaped-charges/directional explosives couldn't do the trick.

Many have postulated that a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit was used for the curiously round C-ring hole.





QUOTE
The witness evidence I presented is legitimate and from bona fide witnesses and most supportive of the impact being a missile.


I beg to differ.

You did not post a single first-hand account.

Only first-hand eyewitness accounts are valid evidence.

So until you confirm these accounts direct with the witnesses and provide audio or video recordings you have not provided any evidence at all.

Out of context media quotes are hearsay, not evidence.

You don't even know if they are real people.

However even if we foolishly assume the quotes are 100% valid none of them are more descriptive of a missile as opposed to a plane.

There simply is no independent evidence that exists for a missile.

Your belief is based solely on speculation and fueled by a very targeted and deliberate psychological manipulation campaign for counter-intelligence purposes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 01:47 AM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 26 2009, 05:53 AM) *
Before, I sign off and while I remember, here's a clip of a piece from AFP (for what it's worth) on the DU issue. Whatever you feel about AFP and Bollyn, the reporting on this issue seems legit to me and seems consistent with other reporting. Even if the planes in question did have DU parts, if no plane hit, and I think we are in agreement on this issue, Craig, then what caused the elevated DU? As I have stated previously, DU evidence would be consistent with the deployment of a Penetrator missile:



Oh goodness.

1. There is nothing to back up this claim that is 100% unverifiable.

2. What makes you think that DU from a single missile buried deep in the Pentagon could possibly be detected in the soil 33 miles away?

The notion seems absurd to me.

DU is extremely low level radiation.

It's the dust from utter saturation of many tons of weaponry in a war zone that has adverse affects.

This isn't valid independent evidence at all let alone direct evidence for a missile.

I think you know that you're reaching pretty hard with this one.

I don't want to come off as harsh Saturna but you have to understand that I am a true skeptic.

I adhere to a very strict standard of proof and I provide hard evidence to back up all my claims.

Even with this strict approach we have been able to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

If the movement doesn't embrace these types of standards we will only dilute what we have already accomplished. THAT is what I am trying to get across.

You have provided zero independent verifiable evidence for a missile.

I am not trying to force you to think a certain way but if you choose to believe in a missile it's imperative that you understand you are choosing to do so based on nothing but speculation.

My main point here is that speculation only hinders our efforts in light of the hard evidence we have already obtained.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 26 2009, 01:57 AM
Post #15


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I've always thought it extremely telling that we see these photos of the "punch out" but never the mass that punched it out. Why dat? This mass disintegrated after punching though a brick wall -- or wasn't worthy of a snapshot? Why dat? It's enough to make a madman crazy. But, thankfully, we have no mechanism for downed light poles -- which leads to the inevitable conclusion that they were staged. And that leads to the easy presumption that if they're going to stage one aspect of the event, they're going to stage all or nearly all the other aspects of the event. It is a presumption but it is a reasonable one given what we know. "Punch out" NOT!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 26 2009, 02:53 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 25 2009, 10:47 PM) *
DU is extremely low level radiation.

I disagree with the extremely low level characterization. The "depleted" is a euphemism for non-fissionable "waste" uranium 238 to "PC" its use in weapons by the DoD.

"Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...unitions/du.htm

More on "D"U

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/77.html

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4439.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 03:16 AM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (dMole @ Feb 26 2009, 06:53 AM) *
I disagree with the extremely low level characterization.


Semantics.

Show me evidence that DU from a single missile in the Pentagon could possibly be detected in soil 33 miles away.

Bollyn's unverifiable report is not direct evidence for a missile no matter how you slice it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Feb 26 2009, 03:25 AM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



QUOTE (dMole @ Feb 24 2009, 05:53 AM) *
I disagree with the extremely low level characterization.


i have to as well.

that out of the way i personally don't find bollyn to be a trust worthy source. sorry. i interviewed people in shanksville he allegedly interviewed as well. to date he is the one responsible for the disinformation of an a10 being in shanksville.

the notion that the pentagon would poison their hq with du for centuries to me is absurd. these guys are truly madmen but they are not suicidal madmen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 26 2009, 10:11 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (dMole @ Feb 24 2009, 05:53 AM) *
I disagree with the extremely low level characterization. The "depleted" is a euphemism for non-fissionable "waste" uranium 238 to "PC" its use in weapons by the DoD.


there is nothing low level about DU.. so it is NOT semantics, unless of course the intent is to compare it to say 10000 Curies worth of some energetic relatively short lived radio-isotope. why this either-or approach? what if i don't feel like answering the question of ' have you stopped beating your wife, answer only yes or no'.

as far as poisoning 'their' own, they have done it in Iraq. they have poisoned their own in Vietnam w/ agent orange/blue etc. They have allowed their own to be killed at Pearl Harbor. what if it is considered acceptable losses?

i don't know Bollyn or Moret or thousands of other people. for that matter, i don't know any of you. having said that, we pick who to trust by our own criteria. just don't try to jedi me and i won't bs you either. don't dictate to me what is considered an acceptable avenue of inquiry. i'm not receptive to that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 11:48 AM
Post #20





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



This is NOT a debate about DU!

I agree 100% that it is heinous, harmful, and in essence a WMD in its own right.

But if any of you are arguing that you would be able to detect heightened radiation levels from DU in the soil 33 miles away from a single missile buried deep in the Pentagon I have some land in Iraq to sell you.

The Bollyn report is not verifiable evidence for a missile. The notion is absurd.

To you GroundPounder,

I'm not trying to "dictate" anything.

I am merely trying to make crystal clear the FACT that there is ZERO independent evidence for a missile as NOBODY has provided a single piece in this thread or anywhere.

So if you choose to accept this theory based on pure speculation that is entirely your business.

Of course this is extremely harmful and completely undermines everything we have accomplished proving 9/11 was an inside job but if that's how you want to contribute obviously I can't stop you.

However if you choose to do it here I can make sure you at least keep it in the debate section where it belongs because it is not valid research.

It is speculation.

If you can't provide any independent evidence the least you could do is admit that much.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 26 2009, 12:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st July 2019 - 09:26 AM