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 > »   
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 26 2009, 01:09 PM
Post #21





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



Plus let's take a closer look at what Bollyn reported:

QUOTE
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.



Bollyn does not reference the name of the alleged doctor who allegedly took the readings.

He consulted Cindy Fokers about the alleged levels but without providing the name of the alleged doctor this is not verifiable evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Feb 26 2009, 01:40 PM
Post #22


∞* 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 (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 06:11 AM) *
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?


Nothing personal, GP, as I don't know you either -- but that statement is a very good example of a kind of "excuse" and diversion that tries to pass itself off as logic and reasoning. I see this all the time with our adversaries. We point to an anomaly and they pull some mental rabbit out of their hat to explain it or throw in some new argument to detract from the question. Examples: Explosions were heard at the WTC -- Must have been propane tanks. Radar altitude shows too high -- Radar altitude isn't very accurate. AA77 couldn't have hit the pentagon -- What happened to the passengers. ...

BUT, first of all, the question posed is: Could the radiation from a single DU missile be detected from 33 miles away? Craig's position is that it can not. Do you hold the opposite position? If so, you have not stated that clearly and unequivocally. It seems highly unlikely to me but I'm not a radiologist and confess to not knowing. It is that simple. All we have to do is be honest with ourselves and everyone else about what we know and what we don't know as opposed to what we merely 'think' or 'believe' or 'suspect'.

Now, beyond that, your statement above is NOT in response to Craig's question but something Domenick tossed in as a side argument: 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. You latched onto this and argued against it but in doing so twisted "poison their hq" into "poison their own" and then used examples to illustrate that they have "poisoned their own" in the past. The fact is, though, that was neither the statement made ("hq" not "own") NOR is it really relevant to the question at hand (can DU be detected at 33 miles).

Again, I don't mean to single you out. We've all done this kind of thing. But you've provided a good example of something we all need to watch for in ourselves and learn from. When the mind experiences a question it will often cast about for an answer and then plug in whatever it comes up with without really thinking it through. Sometimes it even changes the original question and then plugs in an 'answer' to this alternate question without ever realizing what it has done. It is a mental principal analogous to the way the mind fills in the blind spot in our vision.

All this is very very common. In fact, I think it is one of the reasons humanity has gotten itself into such a global mess -- all of us are mentally myopic (narrow vision). We don't look for the 'big picture' with us in it. But what Craig is trying to do here is clarify ONE THING: There is no independently verifiable evidence for a missile at the Pentagon. We are all free to "think" or "speculate" as we like -- but he is asking us to be clear and honest with ourselves about what we are doing when we do so. He's asking us to be intellectually rigorous enough and honest enough with ourselves that we don't mistake "hypothesis" or "belief" or "opinion" or "suspicion" (etc.) for verifiable fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 02:11 PM
Post #23


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (saturnaspider @ Feb 26 2009, 04:53 AM) *
"a doctor"


Saturna, Bollyn is dis/misinfo most of the time.

You don't even have a source, a name, documentation, video.

You must stop the madness, Saturna.

There was no missile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 26 2009, 03:02 PM
Post #24





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



no harm no foul folks. i quit taking this stuff personally a long time ago. i suppose what i am trying to convey here is that there is no definitive proof to either side of the missile argument, moot point that it is. and it is moot since we are in agreement about the fact that a plane did not hit the pentagon. right? are we on the same page?

as far as the DU thing goes, i don't need to debate that. people believe all manner of erroneous stuff. there is a gal, Leuren Moret, who feels DU can be measured downwind. DU. If any of you have better info, take it up with her. Perhaps she'll retract her story. If not, perhaps she can also be branded mis/disinfo.

What I can say for certain is that I was not in the vicinity taking readings and air samples. I can also say with relatively high probability that nobody on this forum did that either. Feel free to refute that in some meaningful fashion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 26 2009, 03:15 PM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (painter @ Feb 24 2009, 04:40 PM) *
Again, I don't mean to single you out. We've all done this kind of thing. But you've provided a good example of something we all need to watch for in ourselves and learn from. When the mind experiences a question it will often cast about for an answer and then plug in whatever it comes up with without really thinking it through. Sometimes it even changes the original question and then plugs in an 'answer' to this alternate question without ever realizing what it has done. It is a mental principal analogous to the way the mind fills in the blind spot in our vision.

All this is very very common. In fact, I think it is one of the reasons humanity has gotten itself into such a global mess -- all of us are mentally myopic (narrow vision). We don't look for the 'big picture' with us in it. But what Craig is trying to do here is clarify ONE THING: There is no independently verifiable evidence for a missile at the Pentagon. We are all free to "think" or "speculate" as we like -- but he is asking us to be clear and honest with ourselves about what we are doing when we do so. He's asking us to be intellectually rigorous enough and honest enough with ourselves that we don't mistake "hypothesis" or "belief" or "opinion" or "suspicion" (etc.) for verifiable fact.


fact is, i agree with you about the mind filling in blanks. we do know there was an explosion, and some minds knowing it wasn't the plane decide it was planted explosives. that is speculation. seems intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. there are no facts that i am aware of, that suggest otherwise. anybody holding out? if so, please share. somebody knows somebodys cousin who...planted them?

so to summarize, we know there was an explosion. we know the plane didn't cause it by impacting the building. what else do we really know? answer that honestly w/o speculation, conjecture, bias and then we'll talk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 04:08 PM
Post #26





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 07:02 PM) *
no harm no foul folks. i quit taking this stuff personally a long time ago. i suppose what i am trying to convey here is that there is no definitive proof to either side of the missile argument, moot point that it is. and it is moot since we are in agreement about the fact that a plane did not hit the pentagon. right? are we on the same page?


Wrong.

Our comprehensive investigation proves there was no missile. This is the point. We took the guess work out of it for you.

The missile disinfo is a MAJOR hindrance and extremely harmful to our cause because there is ZERO evidence for it.

It was deliberately planted because there was no missile and it keeps us chasing ghosts.

It has kept people away from obtaining true evidence for years and now that we HAVE obtained true evidence people have been reluctant to accept it in favor of holding on to their completely unsupported missile disinfo.

It is much worse than no plane at the WTC theories simply because of how accepted it has been.


QUOTE
What I can say for certain is that I was not in the vicinity taking readings and air samples. I can also say with relatively high probability that nobody on this forum did that either. Feel free to refute that in some meaningful fashion.


Easily.

Leuren Moret's claim is not evidence and there is nothing independent to back her claim up.

There is no way to verify if her readings are accurate or whether or not it's even possible to read radiation levels in the air from a single missile that may or may not have allegedly contained DU.

This is ENTIRELY speculative.

That is my point.

Speculation is bad.

Evidence is good.

This is no longer a theory.

There is no longer a place for speculation in this information war where we are at a clear disadvantage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 04:13 PM
Post #27





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 07:15 PM) *
fact is, i agree with you about the mind filling in blanks. we do know there was an explosion, and some minds knowing it wasn't the plane decide it was planted explosives. that is speculation. seems intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise. there are no facts that i am aware of, that suggest otherwise. anybody holding out? if so, please share. somebody knows somebodys cousin who...planted them?

so to summarize, we know there was an explosion. we know the plane didn't cause it by impacting the building. what else do we really know? answer that honestly w/o speculation, conjecture, bias and then we'll talk.


You're missing the point.

I agree that we don't know exactly type of weaponry was used to cause the damage to the building.

But we DO know that it was not from an external source and we DO know there was ONE plane that flew on the north side and therefore did not hit proving 9/11 was an inside job.

No speculation is required.

Pure hard evidence validated many times over via the scientific method of corroboration has been provided for this.

This PROVES the plane did not hit and requires zero speculation. Therefore it's logical to focus on what we do have evidence for as opposed to what we don't have evidence for.

Agreed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 26 2009, 06:20 PM
Post #28





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 24 2009, 06:13 PM) *
You're missing the point.

I agree that we don't know exactly type of weaponry was used to cause the damage to the building.

But we DO know that it was not from an external source...


?


point is, you don't KNOW that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 06:31 PM
Post #29





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 11:20 PM) *
point is, you don't KNOW that.



Well we do because of the sheer volume of witnesses we have spoken with direct.

However for the sake of discussion I will concede that simply because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But you are still missing the point.

The point is that we have hard evidence proving the plane did not hit.

In light of this it is a harmful diversion to focus on ANY type of speculation as this causes the hard evidence to get buried in conspiracy theory and overlooked.

We are not asking you to focus on the pre-planted explosives hypothesis.

We are asking you to focus on the north side approach evidence that has been validated via the scientific method of corroboration as well as the expert findings of P4T demonstrating how the NTSB data is fraudulent.

All of this is enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job while compltely removing the element of theory and speculation.

This information CAN NOT be refuted or doubted by honest intellectual skeptics or critical thinkers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 26 2009, 06:33 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 24 2009, 08:31 PM) *
Well we do because of the sheer volume of witnesses we have spoken with direct.

However for the sake of discussion I will concede that simply because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But you are still missing the point.

The point is that we have hard evidence proving the plane did not hit.

In light of this it is a harmful diversion to focus on ANY type of speculation as this causes the hard evidence to get buried in conspiracy theory and overlooked.

We are not asking you to focus on the pre-planted explosives hypothesis.

We are asking you to focus on the north side approach evidence that has been validated via the scientific method of corroboration as well as the expert findings of P4T demonstrating how the NTSB data is fraudulent.

All of this is enough to prove 9/11 was an inside job while compltely removing the element of theory and speculation.

This information CAN NOT be refuted or doubted by honest intellectual skeptics or critical thinkers.



I"M ONBOARD WITH THE NORTH SIDE APPROACH OK?

just do not bs me with KNOWING what caused the explosion ok?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 07:01 PM
Post #31





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 11:33 PM) *
I"M ONBOARD WITH THE NORTH SIDE APPROACH OK?

just do not bs me with KNOWING what caused the explosion ok?



I did not BS you.

Naturally in light of the fact that there is zero evidence for a missile and in light of the fact that the clear M.O. of this operation was to covertly cause the destruction with pre-planted explosives this is the most logical hypothesis.

But again....the point is that the missile speculation has thrown us wildly off course and HURTS our efforts to get the word out about the evidence we do have.

Time and time again I see legions of truthers focusing on the missile theory while we are literally forced to DEFEND the north side evidence!

It's ludicrous.

This is a plea to hone our argument and shift focus.

There is no need to debate anymore.

There is no need to discuss which "theory" is best or to discuss ANY theory.

We have proof.

If you are on board than great! Excellent! Thank you. You should understand where I am coming from and why I have now decided to make an issue over this.

Please read my latest article in full.

Thanks man.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 26 2009, 07:56 PM
Post #32


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 26 2009, 10:33 PM) *
I"M ONBOARD WITH THE NORTH SIDE APPROACH OK?

just do not bs me with KNOWING what caused the explosion ok?



Well we KNOW it wasn't a missile.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 27 2009, 12:23 AM
Post #33





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



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Feb 26 2009, 10:11 AM) *
Saturna, Bollyn is dis/misinfo most of the time.

You don't even have a source, a name, documentation, video.

You must stop the madness, Saturna.

There was no missile.

Guys, the woman who conducted the gamma test was Dr. Janette Shermann who has worked in radition and biologic research at the University of California Nuclear Facility and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory at Hunter's Point, San Francisco. She served on the advisory board of the EPA from 1976 to 1982. She did this testing at the request of Leuren Moret who is a member of RPHP,a privately funded group studying the effects of D.U. in world combat zones.

These brave women informed the the NIRS, the EPA and the FBI of their findings and publicised this through whatever forums would give them a voice. Love him or hate him, Bollyn gave them exposure when the MSM would not. I used Bollyn because it was to hand and pretty well written and as I said, accurate regarding a presentation of this particular aspect of research/evidence.

Shermann and Moret believe the projectile used was a penetrator missile.

But I guess women throughout history have been dismissed as being prone to "madness". nonono.gif

BTW: You cannot dismiss Shermann's "madness" as being related to her "time of the month" as she is in her seventies. wink.gif

BTBTW: Oh, oh - Now you're going to pronounce her senile. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saturnaspider
post Feb 27 2009, 12:43 AM
Post #34





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



Here's the link to Janette Shermann's web site for those of you interested in getting to know her a little better:
Please Go Visit - She Won't Bite.
smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Feb 27 2009, 03:05 AM
Post #35





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 24 2009, 01:11 PM) *
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?


when i talk about them poisoning their own clearly you can understand there is a difference between donald rumsfeld and some grunt making 18k a year risking his life in some sh*t hole carrying around du rounds. i would hope so.

of course they slaughter the bottom of the ladder. they don't touch the upper brass is what my comment meant. nor would they. thats why no high value military targets died in the 9/11 attacks. they were bottom of the ladder people are far as those who make the decisions are concerned.......


eta : i didn't see painter had replied to this and i don't want to drag the topic off topic any further. i just wanted to elaborate a little further on my earlier statement as i thought some people may have accidentally mistaken it for something else. although i'm pretty sure groundpounder didn't misinterpet what i said........

This post has been edited by Domenick DiMaggio CIT: Feb 27 2009, 03:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 27 2009, 03:18 AM
Post #36





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



Saturna,

No need for sarcasm.

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

However the "belief" of ANYONE is not evidence.

Neither is your belief in their belief.

That is faith.

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

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 27 2009, 03:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Feb 27 2009, 05:52 PM
Post #37





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



In all fairness Craig you also speculate. You assume explosives were used to create multiple holes not being sure of what type or how many charges were used. You assume that the generator trailer was pre-positioned to face the strike zone with pre-existing damage to the top of the trailer. You assume the fence by the trailer was destoyed prior to the supposed planted explosions. You assume the light poles were pre-rigged to fall over. Rumsfeld's mis-use of the word missile then should clearly be ignored as hearsay and not in your category of hard evidence.
QUOTE
I agree that we don't know exactly type of weaponry was used to cause the damage to the building.

If you state that you don't know, then the type of weapon used COULD have been a missile. You cannot have it both ways.

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Feb 27 2009, 05:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 27 2009, 07:16 PM
Post #38





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



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Feb 27 2009, 10:52 PM) *
If you state that you don't know, then the type of weapon used COULD have been a missile. You cannot have it both ways.


The independent evidence we provide counters a missile strike but does not counter pre-planted explosives.

I am not asking you to focus on a pre-planted explosive theory.

I am asking you to drop ALL speculation and focus on the evidence proving a deception.

What's clear is that the movement did not take shape in early 2002 based on fraudulent government provided data supporting pre-planted explosives.

The missile theory has been part of the propaganda since the inception of the movement yet there is no evidence for a missile

It is harmful and distracting to the evidence proving a deception when clearly this is not the case with a pre-planted explosive hypothesis that frankly is also irrelevant to the north side approach evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 28 2009, 05:20 PM
Post #39





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



The error being that the writer pretends to know some things he could not know unless he was there.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 28 2009, 06:00 PM
Post #40





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



They're NOT suicidal maniacs? What about the guy who is prepared to "take one for the company/platoon/squad?

What about those dudes that walk around with crossbones and other symbols of death tatooed onto their bodies? They're NOT maniacs? They're not suicidal?

Humans are tons of fun. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 22nd November 2019 - 02:39 PM