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 4 5 > »   
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

saturnaspider
post Feb 28 2009, 06:13 PM
Post #41





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 26 2009, 11:18 PM) *
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.

QUOTES - Craig Ranke CIT: "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.

"the damage remains directional between the initial breach in the E-ring and the alleged "exit" hole in the C-ring"

"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."

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

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

QUOTES - Craig Ranke CIT: "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."

"Shermann and Moret have nothing to do with the Bollyn article."

"If you can't provide any independent verifiable evidence please at least concede that your belief in the missile theory is based on speculation."

Hi, Craig. How are you doing?

Is it reasonable to consider "In context" media accounts that are well-sourced and muliple corroborated? Is it reasonable to consider filmed interview evidence, again well-sourced and multiple corroborated?

I presented my ear-witnesses to a missile strike, without references, on the understanding that the witnesses are all pretty well known now in the 9/11 Truth community. As you seem unaware of them and suggest that they might not even exist I will take the time to authenticate them:

Lou Rains is a world renowned expert on space and the editor and Vice President of Space News. He has been cited by NASA, and interviewed as an expert by MSM channels. He was the moderator of the CEO panel; San Diego ISCe conference 2006. His quote about being convinced it was a missile comes from an article he submitted to Space News on September 14 2001. He was near the Pentagon on the I-395. His article is titled Eyewitness: The Pentagon - by Lou Rains, Editor, Space News. The article has recently been reposted at space.com. I am sure you can find it.

Tom Siebert (Woodbridge, VA), who described hearing what sounded like a missile, was an engineering contractor.

Sheila Moody (Severin, MD native), who heard the whistling sound just prior to impact, had just started working in the Pentagon as an accountant. She was in room 472 at the time of the impact.

David Theall, works for public affairs at the Pentagon. He was interviewed on Larry King Live, CNN, 9/13/01. He was a few dozen feet from where the plane hit.

Dan Fraunfelter was an engineering contractor working on the third floor of the Pentagon's E ring.

John Thurman is a Lt. Colonel for the U.S. Army and was working in the second floor office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, just above the impact area. More recently, he gave testimony for the Moussaoui trial in 2006:
and stated for the record:

"To me it didn't seem like a plane."

Here, once again are the bite sized quotes from these witnesses:

Lou Rains: I heard a loud, quick, whooshing sound
Sheila Moody: I heard a whistle and then a rumble and a big whoosh
Dan Fraunfelter: A strange sucking, whirring sound like a vacuum cleaner
David Theall: A certain whoosh that you hear and at the moment of impact there's a vacuum that just simply sucks the air out of your lungs
John Thurman: There was a large whoosh and then a kind of karumph sound
Tom Siebert: We heard what sounded like a huge missile and then we heard a loud boom

I encourage everyone to "search engine" these witnesses for a more in depth reading of their testimony.

Note: As far as I am aware, the Pentagon is not sound proofed. A Jet plane's engines have a distinct and well recognized sound, furthermore, at impact (or fly-over) altitude the noise of the plane would have been extremely loud and identifiable. These people do not describe hearing a plane.

Craig, from your above-mentioned quotes, it appears that you concede that the ballistic evidence is supportive of a missile strike. If it was not for the distinct and clear evidence of the approach of a projectile being heard leading up to the blast (e.g. from the witnesses supplied) it might be worth considering that pre-planted explosives were used to imitate a projectile entry and subsequent explosion, plus projectile exit. However, if you take the two aspects of the evidence in conjunction, you have clear evidence for a projectile delivered blast.

We both agree it could not have been a plane. What are we left with? I am just trying to be logical here.

With regards to your point regarding Bollyn:

Though Bollyn doesn't mention Moret and Shermann in his article it seems self evident that from the information he imparts that he is referencing their study.

BTW: What exactly have you got against the idea of it being a projectile delivered blast? I am most curious.

Respectfully, Saturna salute.gif

P.S. I meant to post this (Szymanski on Major Doug Rokke - Missiles at Pentagon) on the debate thread. Take a look if you like.

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 28 2009, 07:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 28 2009, 06:23 PM
Post #42





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Feb 28 2009, 01:20 PM) *
It is safer and more reasonable, when questioning a public story, to not pretend to know exactly what happened at any given location, UNLESS one was present for the event.

You're being dogmatic in this stance Craig, and I thank you and admire you for all the work you've done in this matter.

I thank you too, Craig, but I have to agree with amazed on the issue of dogmatism.

Please read my recent post in the debate forum here.

Cheers, Saturna. salute.gif

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 28 2009, 06:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 28 2009, 07:12 PM
Post #43





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



FWIW - Here's a copy of the post from the other thread:

QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 28 2009, 02:13 PM) *
P.S. I meant to post this (Szymanski on Major Doug Rokke - Missiles at Pentagon) on the debate thread. Take a look if you like.

I know you're gonna sock me for using Szymanski (Arctic Beacon) but he happens to be another journalist who went against the grain to cover this Depleted Uranium issue. Here's a snip from his reporting:

QUOTE
(August 18, 2005 ) — A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military’s depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.

“I’m not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used,” said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home.

Moret, who has spent a life time working in the nuclear field, first as a staff scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in California, is now a member of The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a privately funded group studying the devastating effects of depleted uranium especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regarding the missile theory, it is also backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert banished from the Pentagon after the military failed to follow regulations regarding the use, clean up and medical treatment regarding the use of depleted uranium.

“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,” said Maj. Rokke from his Rantoul, IL home this week. “And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.
I, personally speaking, will give "time of day" to the opinion of "A high ranking Army Major who headed up the military's Depleted Uranium project."

Thanks in advance for bearing with me on this, Saturna. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 28 2009, 09:21 PM
Post #44



Group Icon

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



Quoting Saturna's off-topic post here, so that it can be discussed on-topic

QUOTE
The punch in, through wound and punch out at the Pentagon, could conceivably have been accomplished by a skilled explosives expert in order to imitate a penetrator missile strike, though if we include the evidence of earwitnesses such an expert would have needed to supply an audio imitation of the missile's approach also that would have been effective as an imitation both inside and outside the building, even as far as the I-395 freeway, where Lou Rains testifies that he heard the projectile's approach and subsequent explosion.


Although it wasn't sourced, if you mean Lon Rains, he is apparently a writer for Space.com and Space News Business Report.

Here is Lon's 2005 Pentagon article in his own words:

http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html

Eyewitness: The Pentagon
By Lon Rains
Editor, Space News
posted: 30 June 2005
06:13 am

"WASHINGTON It is one thing to be sent to report on a war, or to watch one unfold on television, but unlike many of their colleagues in Africa, Asia and Europe, American journalists have no experience covering a war on their home soil.

Like millions of other Americans, I was already in the office when my wife called and told me to run to a television because the World Trade Center had apparently been attacked. She works on a federal facility and they were already being warned to take precautions.
...
As I headed out of the parking lot of our office in Springfield, Va., a Washington suburb, I turned on the radio and listened intently as the events began to unfold with reports that several planes had been hijacked. It was disturbing news but still seemed a distant threat images on television of a place you knew, but one that felt very far away.

In light traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 oclock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.

At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.

I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane. Friends and colleagues have asked me if I felt a shock wave and I honestly do not know. I felt [b]something, but I dont know if it was a shock wave or the fact that I jumped so hard[/b] I strained against the seat belt and shoulder harness and was thrown back into my seat.

My first instinct was to grab the phone and call one of our reporters. I did and screamed repeatedly into the mouthpiece: "the Pentagons been hit, the Pentagons been hit." There was no doubt in my mind that this was an attack by the same unknown foe attacking New York.
...."

My quick notes from above:

1. Rains was "listening intently" to the radio inside his van.
2. Stuck in traffic on I395, with the Pentagon "at 10 o'clock."
3. Whooshing sound from somewhere behind "stopped in front of me and to my left."
4. The only thing Rains "saw was the fireball."
5. He convincingly surmised "it was a missile."
6. Rains was clearly stressed/excited as he "screamed repeatedly into the mouthpiece."
7. This account was written in 2005.

I would interpret Rains' account to locate him inside his van somewhere north of the Pentagon City Residence Inn (and looks to be closer to the Inn than to the Pentagon itself):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...mp;z=14&t=m

I wonder what kind of "missile" that Rains heard. How many and what types of missiles had Rains heard before? According to this page, a 64-inch AGM-114 Hellfire missile travels at Mach 1.3.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-114.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

Jane's tells us that a BGM-71 TOW missile only travels at 280 m/sec [~544 knots].

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/ne...01013_2_n.shtml

Would there have been a sonic boom? Why didn't Rains mention that part? How big would the warhead(s) have been? What would the kinetic energy range have been based upon the initial Pentagon damage?

I did find that Rains has written about the aerospace/defense industry:

Separate Space Military Force Has Few Supporters at Pentagon
http://www.space.com/spacenews/spaceforce_100704.html

Wait a minute!! It's not this same guy now at Northrup Grumman is it?

Northrop Grumman Names Lon L. Rains Director of Communications for Space Technology Sector
Sally Koris
Monday, 20 October 2008
http://www.a-zet.org/aerospace-industry-an...ogy-sector.html

Hmmm.... A Lon Rains is also mentioned in this thread here:

Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10632205

EDIT: Could Rains have felt a shock wave from Pentagon explosions, as he "honestly do[es] not know" what he felt?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:43 AM
Post #45





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



There is nothing "dogmatic" about requiring evidence.

There is zero independent evidence for a missile or ANYTHING on the south side flight path.

This is a fact as none of you have been able to provide any.

If you choose to hold on to this speculative notion the least you could do is admit that it is based on nothing but speculation.

That would be an honest way to discuss such a claim but either way it is harmful to our efforts and dilutes the hard evidence that exists proving the plane did not hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:51 AM
Post #46





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



So far nothing but speculation has been presented.

Here is the difference between what CIT presents and what Leuren Moret or any of these people who allegedly tested for radiation levels near the time of the attack.....

We don't require you to trust us.

I don't trust the government nor do I trust ANY conspiracy theorist.

I only accept independent verifiable evidence and Leuren Moret has presented NONE.

I do not ask any of you to trust me either.

You should not.

All of the first-hand witness accounts we present were recorded and the names provided so ANYONE can check with the witnesses direct if we reported their accounts accurately and fairly.

Nobody can check the accuracy of Leren Moret's alleged radiation tests.

Agreed?

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 1 2009, 01:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Mar 1 2009, 02:04 AM
Post #47





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



QUOTE
The work of CIT has thoroughly debunked the missile theories.


...sorry!... disagree with that statement!... you have not totally debunked that a missile was fired out of `that` mound of earth!

...as for eye witness`s ... do remember that at that moment in time, anybody that was`nt in a car or asleep, had their face stuck in front of a TV set!... dont you think `they` would have relied on this probability in the timing of the days events?.... and talking of timing... its pretty obvious to me that the Pentagon hit came when it did for various reasons.... and who`s to say they did`nt arrange a little drive by convoy of Feds cars to pass the Pentagon at the most crucial moment in time to shield the possibility of any witness`s.... any witness`s that did show up would be `lost`!

...remember!... on 7-7 `they` shot someone dead at Canary Wharf!... i have spoke to 2 people that said they witnessed it and many many others who recall people saying someone had been shot... now if they can cover up and hide that from the whole world... they can hide the odd one or two that might have witnessed a missile... especially if said missile was only in the air for 2 seconds and the whole world was in front of their TV sets!

...something hit the Pentagon and you know it was`nt a plane!.... the options are very limited!

...imo`!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 1 2009, 08:09 AM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



OK, if nothing hit the pentagon, then explosives must have been planted and used,
to make it look like it was hit by a plane.

If they planted explosives only inside the pentagon,
the wall would have been blown out, and
possibly not look like it was hit in, by a plane.

Therefore, there may have been explosives set on the outside
of the pentagon, as well, before.

There were videos of a fireball going off outside the pentagon, after the incident.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 1 2009, 10:10 AM
Post #49





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It is dogmatic to take a position that cannot be proven, a negative in this case, and demand from all present that there is no other option, no other possibility.

I think it can be fairly well proven that no 757 hit the Pentagon, but to claim proof that a missle did NOT hit the building is tending towards sophistry. Perhaps it is true that no missle was used, but perhaps not.

Given the SOP of today's military regarding the use of high technology guided missles, it seems rather odd that one would NOT be used in such an operation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Anduril
post Mar 1 2009, 10:30 AM
Post #50





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 118
Joined: 24-May 08
From: Bristol, England
Member No.: 3,418



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 26 2009, 08:15 PM) *
There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit
(an open letter to the 9/11 truth movement)
by: Craig Ranke
<snip>


Craig:

I wasn't there, but I know someone who was:

The Chief Freedom of Information Officer at t Pentagon.

His boss was killed there on 9/11.

I had written to him to discover who had ordered the "Stand-down" of ALL JAG Supervision at all the "interrogations" , at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

Standing Orders statet tha TWO JAG officers observe the interrogation through a one-way glass screen. This protects the detainee; protects the interrogators from false accusations; and helps to raise the qualti of intelligence gained. Very many JAG Officers are FURIOUS that they were ordered to stand down. Why else could this have been ordered, other than to facilitate criminal acts under the US War Crimes Act [1996]?

He wrote me a most helpful email, showing me how to refinet my request under FOIA.

I telephoned him on June 3, 2004, and we spoke for about an hour.

I asked him what he thought of the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

He replied that his boss had been killed there, and I asked him if he had Internet access. He laughed, and said he had 12 terminals...

He has (or had) the highest security clearance in the building, insofar as he has (or had) full access to the Pentagon mainframes. He HAS to have this, so as to 'redact' sensitive information within FOIA releases. I.e. he's the man who -- literally! - blacks out the highly-classified stuff...

We looked at a wide range of high-quality photographs, witness statements, evidence from within the building, and so on.

He then said -- with a voice like cold polished steel -- "Tony, THERE WAS NO BOEING."

So how could an entire jetliner be "disappeared" in an open kerosene fire? Why did the FBI report finding matched traces of DNA for all the passengers? The black boxes were -- allegedly -- found there by the FBI. John Ashcroft's FBI -- who were in full charge of the murder investigations (which are all still open, BTW).

We ended the call.


Half an hour later, CIA Director George Tenet and his "Ciunter-Terrorism" Chief tearfully announced their 'surprise' resignations, citing concern for their families...

Ashcroft was in charge of the Justice Deparment AND the FBI.

Perfectly placed, with vast resources of men and expertise.

And blackmail deadlocks on politicians and government officials from all the "Security Clearance" investigations...

Perfectly placed to "look the other way" when Mayor Rudi Giuliani illegally swept away the crime scene evidence at WTC and shipped it overseas for destruction.

------------ * * * * * ------------


"9/11" was an in-place Coup d'Etat, whereby a small group of politically-motivated people stole control of the US Government, leaving President George W. Bush as the hapless 'front man', to take all the flak. How could Bush know who to trust?

------------ * * * * * ------------


9/11 Research is a Methodological Scientific Research Programme:

Absolutely the LAST thing we should ask for is another Government Commission or Government Inquiry! Who is kidding who?


------------ * * * * * ------------


Research programmes
===============


"Lakatos' contribution to the philosophy of science was an attempt to resolve the perceived conflict between Popper's falsificationism and the revolutionary structure of science described by Kuhn. Popper's theory as often reported (inaccurately) implied that scientists should give up a theory as soon as they encounter any falsifying evidence, immediately replacing it with increasingly 'bold and powerful' new hypotheses. However, Kuhn described science as consisting of periods of normal science in which scientists continue to hold their theories in the face of anomalies, interspersed with periods of great conceptual change. Popper acknowledged that excellent new theories may be inconsistent with apparently empirically well supported older theories. For example, he pointed out in Objective Knowledge (p.200) that Newton's theories were inconsistent with Kepler's third law. However, whereas Kuhn implied that good scientists ignored or discounted evidence against their theories Popper regarded counter evidence as something to be dealt with, either by explaining it, or eventually modifying the theory. Popper was not describing actual behaviour of scientists, but what a scientist should do. Kuhn was mostly describing actual behaviour.

Lakatos sought a methodology that would harmonize these apparently contradictory points of view, a methodology that could provide a rational account of scientific progress, consistent with the historical record.

For Lakatos, what we think of as a 'theory' may actually be a succession of slightly different theories and experimental techniques developed over time, that share some common idea, or what Lakatos called their 'hard core'. Lakatos called such changing collections 'Research Programmes'. The scientists involved in a programme will attempt to shield the theoretical core from falsification attempts behind a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. Whereas Popper was generally regarded as disparaging such measures as 'ad hoc', Lakatos wanted to show that adjusting and developing a protective belt is not necessarily a bad thing for a research programme. Instead of asking whether a hypothesis is true or false, Lakatos wanted us to ask whether one research programme is better than another, so that there is a rational basis for preferring it. He showed that in some cases one research programme can be described as progressive while its rivals are degenerative. A progressive research programme is marked by its growth, along with the discovery of stunning novel facts, development of new experimental techniques, more precise predictions, etc. A degenerative research program is marked by lack of growth, or growth of the protective belt that does not lead to novel facts.

Lakatos claimed that he was actually expounding Popper's ideas, which had themselves developed over time. He contrasted Popper0, the crude falsificationist, who existed only in the minds of critics and followers who had not understood Popper's writings, Popper1, the author of what Popper actually wrote, and Popper2, who was supposed to be Popper as reinterpreted by his pupil Lakatos, though many commentators believe that Popper2 just is Lakatos. The idea that it is often not possible to show decisively which of two theories or research programmes is better at a particular point in time whereas subsequent developments may show that one is 'progressive' while the other is 'degenerative', and therefore less acceptable was a major contribution both to philosophy of science and to history of science. Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos' idea, or, most likely, a combination, is of less importance.

Lakatos was following Pierre Duhem's idea that one can always protect a cherished belief from hostile evidence by redirecting the criticism toward other things that are believed. (See Confirmation holism and Duhem-Quine thesis). This difficulty with falsificationism had been acknowledged by Popper.

Falsificationism, (Popper's theory), proposed that scientists put forward theories and that nature 'shouts NO' in the form of an inconsistent observation. According to Popper, it is irrational for scientists to maintain their theories in the face of Nature's rejection, yet this is what Kuhn had described them as doing. But for Lakatos, "It is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO rather we propose a maze of theories and nature may shout INCONSISTENT"[3]. This inconsistency can be resolved without abandoning our Research Programme by leaving the hard core alone and altering the auxiliary hypotheses. One example given is Newton's three laws of motion. Within the Newtonian system (research programme) these are not open to falsification as they form the programme's hard core. This research programme provides a framework within which research can be undertaken with constant reference to presumed first principles which are shared by those involved in the research programme, and without continually defending these first principles. In this regard it is similar to Kuhn's notion of a paradigm.

Lakatos also believed that a research programme contained 'methodological rules', some that instruct on what paths of research to avoid (he called this the 'negative heuristic') and some that instruct on what paths to pursue (he called this the 'positive heuristic').

Lakatos claimed that not all changes of the auxiliary hypotheses within research programmes (Lakatos calls them 'problem shifts') are equally as acceptable. He believed that these 'problem shifts' can be evaluated both by their ability to explain apparent refutations and by their ability to produce new facts. If it can do this then Lakatos claims they are progressive[4]. However if they do not, if they are just 'ad-hoc' changes that do not lead to the prediction of new facts, then he labels them as degenerate.

Lakatos believed that if a research programme is progressive, then it is rational for scientists to keep changing the auxiliary hypotheses in order to hold on to it in the face of anomalies. However, if a research programme is degenerate, then it faces danger from its competitors, it can be 'falsified' by being superseded by a better (i.e. more progressive) research programme. This is what he believes is happening in the historical periods Kuhn describes as revolutions and what makes them rational as opposed to mere leaps of faith (as he believed Kuhn took them to be).


The Milton Friedman neoclassical economics case study

In August 1972 a case study of the methodology of neoclassical economics by Lakatos's London School of Economics colleague Spiro Latsis published in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science found Milton Friedman's methodology to be 'pseudo-scientific' in terms of Lakatos's evaluative philosophy of science, according to which the demarcation between scientific and pseudo-scientific theories consists of their at least predicting testable empirical novel facts or not.[5] Latsis claimed Friedman's instrumentalist methodology of neoclassical economics had never predicted any novel facts.[6] In its defence in a three-page letter to Latsis in December 1972, Friedman counter-claimed that the neoclassical monopoly competition model had in fact shown empirical progress by predicting phenomena not previously observed that were also subsequently confirmed by empirical evidence.[7]But he notably never actually identified any specific economic phenomenon as an example of any such successfully predicted positive novel fact.[8]

In early 1973, as Editor of the Journal, Lakatos invited Friedman to submit a discussion note based on his December 1972 letter to Latsis for publication in a symposium on the issue of the scientific status or not of neoclassical economics . Lakatos even assured Friedman he would have the last word.[9] But Friedman never took up Lakatos's invitation. Three years later, in 1976 Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics without this outstanding charge of 'pseudo-science' ever having been publicly conclusively rebutted. The citation for Friedman's prize said it was awarded "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilisation policy." But four Nobel Prize laureates protested at Friedman's award, and most notably the 1974 joint laureate of the Economics award, Gunnar Myrdal, complained that Friedman's prize (and also Hayek's) was undeserved because the economics did not qualify as a science, thus apparently concurring with Latsis's judgment that Friedman's economics was 'pseudo-scientific'."

------------ * * * * * ------------

Side-bar: Counter-Intelligence folk know that the content of disinformation is usually 95% true, so as to "sell" the "nuggett" of falsehood. Oddly enough, that's an imrovement on most 'sources.'

Most people never advance to Wiki and look up "List of Cognitive Biases": We should, more often. Because the cruel hoax of "9/11" contains almost all of them, brilliantly wielded.

Jerome Hauer is quite outstanding...

Knowledge is where the circles of Truth and Belief overlap.


Best Wishes,

Tony Hollick

http://www.STARGATE.uk.net/agora/

https://wfsearch01.erdc.usace.army.mil/cgi-...uery=Demolition

This post has been edited by Anduril: Mar 1 2009, 02:03 PM
Reason for edit: shortened quote
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 1 2009, 10:50 AM
Post #51





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Saturna

I find that fairly persuasive evidence to support what is essentially just a common sense theory.

Whichever prosecutor let Thurman into the Moussoui trial sure screwed up. Or, perhaps Thurman intentionally dropped that little information bomb at a trial that was recorded word for word? I would love to have been at that trial. rolleyes.gif

To me, it just seems a given that the perps would employ missle technology for such a precise strike. ALCM or SLCM would be easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 1 2009, 01:13 PM
Post #52


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


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



QUOTE (Anduril @ Mar 1 2009, 06:30 AM) *
Craig:

I wasn't there, but I know someone who was:

The Chief Freedom of Information Officer at t Pentagon.


There is a lot of very interesting and useful information in your post, Anduril, but I'm not exactly sure I understand what it all has to do with Craig's open letter. If you get the chance, I'd appreciate some focus on that.

I assume there are people within our government and military who know that 9/11 was/is an inside job who were not directly associated with the planning and execution of the event. I assume that the information -- proof, in fact -- of this is highly classified because it is a matter of the highest national security. So classified, in fact, that the fact that it is classified is itself classified. I believe this explains some of the interesting wording Aidan Monaghan has received in response to some of his FOIAs: "In reviewing your description of the most recent requests, we have determined that, based on previous requests and our responses to those requests, you have all of the releasable documents in the possession of the agency regarding September 11, 2001." My bold because of what it says and what it does not say. It says "all of the releasable documents". It does NOT say "all of the documents" without qualification. Typical bureaucratic double speak. The qualifying "realisable" inserted into the word phrase to cover their collective butts.

Immediately after 9/11 I was aware that it was an "inside" operation in some sense of the word. I'm not an "insider" in government or military and I don't claim to really understand what is going on in the halls of power -- even above ground, that is, in what can be reported in the media and seen by interested observers -- much less in those deeper recesses of power where legitimate government interests overlap intrigue and criminality. My individual 'take' on it has been shaped by Hollywood -- movies such as "The Good Shepherd," and "The Bohrn Identity" series -- where what is presented is a world of intrigue that riddles (pun intended) everyone and everything. Where no one knows whom to trust. This is why my motto is "Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." This isn't just for myself or others here. I'm really saying this to those who may read this that are in positions to actually KNOW something. If your superior or senior officer tells you something, naturally in a hierarchical system you are obligated to believe what they are telling you is true, even in the absence of either evidence or a more complete or full understanding of its significance. If you're told that something is "a matter of national security" -- well, that is that. But whose butt is it really covering -- whose "nation" (that is to say, whose interests) is it really protecting?

I admit to being an idealist. People who view themselves as more pragmatic, so called "realists," view people like me as suffering from a kind of insanity that is potentially dangerous. To them, people like me are allowable so far as we are useful to their aims. That is, to the extent that people like me have our ideals contained within a structure that people like them control. But when people like me begin to understand that deception is not the exception but the rule -- something "realists" accept as a matter of fact -- then where are we? To the latter, 9/11 truth is, indeed, a matter of national security where, for me, it is just the opposite. I have this deeply held belief that the best possible thing this country could do for itself and its future is to expose the truth about 9/11 to its citizenry and the world. Thus initiating a counter-coup that could have extremely significant ramifications not only for this country but the whole of human history. I believe exposing this truth would begin to rend the veil of deception that keeps all of us imprisoned, liberating us toward possibilities that, for most, are as of yet undreamed of. In other words, a real revolution that could at long last overthrow the invisible tyranny of wealth and privilege over conscience. So, to attempt an answer to my own question, where we are, then, is at a cross roads in human history.

Without this, without 9/11 truth and the eventual unveiling of all that is currently hidden from us, I believe this planet and its inhabitants will remain the actual or metaphorical galactic penal colony it currently is. In either case, you can NOT have "freedom" and sustain deception as the rule. I believe that is such an obvious fact I don't see how anyone could seriously argue against it except as an example of their own delusion and preference for remaining beings such as they are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:20 PM
Post #53





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 1 2009, 02:10 PM) *
It is dogmatic to take a position that cannot be proven, a negative in this case, and demand from all present that there is no other option, no other possibility.

I think it can be fairly well proven that no 757 hit the Pentagon, but to claim proof that a missle did NOT hit the building is tending towards sophistry. Perhaps it is true that no missle was used, but perhaps not.


Yeah and PERHAPS a military blimp with a cloaking device fired the missile.

This shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand.

My point here is that speculation HARMS OUR EFFORTS in light of the fact that we have HARD EVIDENCE proving that the plane flew on the north side and therefore did not hit.

Particularly when that SPECULATION was inserted by Rumsfeld, fueled by a fraudulent DoD video, and has been the predominate belief of the movement since day one yet it has gotten us nowhere because there is zero evidence for it and the MASSIVE amount of evidence that we HAVE obtained 100% contradicts this notion.

If you have viewed the body of evidence we present and watched/listened to ALL the interviews and still think that missile flew tree-top level and in to the building on the south side yet remained completely unnoticed by everyone while the perps staged the light poles and cab scene I can't help you.

And you can't help us.

You are a determent to our efforts.

What we have uncovered is not a conspiracy theory, it is PROOF.

The notion of a south side missile impact is a conspiracy theory that is fully endorsed by the perpetrators.

You are working for them and against us as long as you defend their conspiracy theory and fail to join us in abandoning speculation while hyper-focusing on the evidence proving a deception.

I don't think you are a bad guy or that you are a detrement to our efforts on purpose.

I think you have been psychologically manipulated to the point that you are unable to think logically.

Now please keep this debate in the thread I created for it in the debate section and refrain from all missile speculation.

It is now a requirement here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:26 PM
Post #54





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



amazed!,

Saturna did not provide any evidence.

He provided an unverifiable statement.

Why are you willing to accept a government pushed conspiracy theory base on nothing but trust while we have hard evidence proving a deception?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:28 PM
Post #55





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



QUOTE (CocaineImportAgency @ Mar 1 2009, 07:04 AM) *
...sorry!... disagree with that statement!... you have not totally debunked that a missile was fired out of `that` mound of earth!


Sorry there is no evidence that a missile was launched from the ground right in front of all the witnesses yet nobody noticed such a thing.

You made it up.

Speculation and conspiracy theory is harmful to exposing this deception in light of the fact that we have already obtained proof via scientifically validated evidence on multiple fronts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 01:31 PM
Post #56





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



The fact is that ZERO independent verifiable evidence for a missile has been presented in this thread or anywhere.

The least you guys could do is admit that you believe in this theory based on nothing but speculation and faith.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 02:46 PM
Post #57





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



QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 28 2009, 11:13 PM) *
BTW: What exactly have you got against the idea of it being a projectile delivered blast? I am most curious.



I have made this perfectly clear.

There is zero independent evidence for a missile yet there is a lot of evidence that this is what the suspect WANTED you to believe from the start.

In light of the fact that we now have hard evidence proving there was a plane and where it flew proving it did not hit the building it is only logical that we drop all speculation and theory while focusing on this evidence.

The more we focus on theory over evidence the more this issue will be dismissed and our efforts will be hindered.

However if there WAS evidence for a missile, aircraft, or ANYTHING on the south side flight path I would have been fine to embrace it.

But there isn't as this thread has revealed that all you can come up with is speculation, rumor, and faith.

You seem quick to trust people.

I think that is foolish given the nature of this crime.

I trust no one and I am not asking anyone to trust me.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 1 2009, 02:49 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aviophobia
post Mar 1 2009, 03:30 PM
Post #58





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



Hi Craig and all,
I've commented before on ATC about the Pentagon witnesses (mostly from watching your videos) with the exception of Stephen Gerard, whose video account I've only recently seen. But is it my imagination or does Gerard seem to be the most credible Pentagon witness? He seems an intelligent person who is very specific about what he saw from the building across the street, "...maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side." However he does say "...out of the corner of my eye". Does he mean he caught the vista out of the corner of his eye, which turned his full attention to the detail of the plane, or does he mean that all his vision was out of the corner of his eye? Has anyone ever followed up on Stephen Gerard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlJop6mV_sg...t=1&index=2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 1 2009, 04:27 PM
Post #59





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



QUOTE (aviophobia @ Mar 1 2009, 07:30 PM) *
Hi Craig and all,
But is it my imagination or does Gerard seem to be the most credible Pentagon witness? He seems an intelligent person who is very specific about what he saw from the building across the street, "


I'd say it's your imagination because he does not "seem" credible to me at all.

He seems sketchy and and emotionally removed from his experience for someone who allegedly witnessed such an intense event.

Note how he keeps looking down as he relays the details of his alleged account.

This is a non-verbal sign that he is not telling the truth.

But regardless of our very different impressions of his demeanor the evidence proves he is lying because nobody in the immediate area only dozens of feet from the plane report any such thing.

If he was in an office building in Crystal City looking over why didn't he see the relatively slow banking large commercial airliner on the north side like everyone else reported?

Now.....we did speak directly with Gerard.

He was extremely evasive and wouldn't confirm or deny anything. He was standoffish and defensive, not in a nervous or scared kind of way but in a cold and calculated kind of way similar to how he comes off to me in the video from 9/11.

He said, "what I saw is what is on the record". He was very uncooperative and said he didn't want to 'contribute to any conspiracy theories'. We made it very clear to him that his account was the BASIS for conspiracy theories which obviously he would know by now. Plus don't forget, we works for the DoJ.

Either way his account is not evidence for a missile, or of two flying objects, and the north side approach evidence proves his account false.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 1 2009, 04:47 PM
Post #60





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



QUOTE
He provided an unverifiable statement.

You also take people at their word and present it as HARD evidence. Remember it is still just their words, they are not coming up with video footage showing what did or did not hit the pentagon. When you show me hard evidence of what hit the pentagon, I will believe flyover,not that I discount it we know the FDR was faked so we can eliminate that as a source.There is no evidence of a bomb as oppossed to a flying projectile both should be held as possibilities. Until then you as well as all of us still speculate. If you have 100 witnesses to a car crash and interview all 100 seperately you will get 100 versions of the truth, some will even say they saw it when they did not as they were looking the other way and only saw the aftermath and just make up what they think they might have seen had they been watching. People have a fascination with being asssociated with historical events, to be part of history. The quote above applies equally to all eyewitnesses, unverifiable until backed up with hard evidence even your witnesses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 19th November 2019 - 08:38 AM