There's No Independent Verifiable Evidence For A Missile At The Pentagon, if you disagree please post evidence here Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

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

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Anduril,

You have not addressed a single thing I have said direct.

From your very first post even painter asked you to clarify how any of it pertained to the topic.

Frankly it seems as though you are talking to yourself.

If you have a coherent point that applies to this topic please quote me and make it but I can't make heads or tails of a single one of your posts in this thread.

[Anduril]

Anduril,

You have not addressed a single thing I have said direct.

From your very first post even painter asked you to clarify how any of it pertained to the topic.

Frankly it seems as though you are talking to yourself.

If you have a coherent point that applies to this topic please quote me and make it but I can't make heads or tails of a single one of your posts in this thread.

[ FX: "Beware the swine that cast Perles..." ] (smiles)

OK, Craig,

We'll demolish a couple of your principal methodological assertions:

"All government controlled and provided information is 100% invalid evidence (WHETHER OR NOT it can be shown to be altered) within the context of an investigation into government involvement.

That is a fact and a rule that we must go by if we wish to find the truth."


Firstly, it is no sense ANY kind of fact.

WHERE THE ASSERTION COMES FROM IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO ITS TRUTH (or falsity)

ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH-CONTENT OF ANY ASSERTION AS STATED.

IF NIST ASSERTS THAT "2 + 2 = 4" DO YOU DISCARD ARITHMETIC??

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

Secondly: The hypothesis that a missile hit the Pentagon is advanced as a tentative solution to this problem-situation:

"What caused (some of) the damage to the Pentagon on 9/11?"

We can then deduce testable propositions from this hypothesis "A missile damaged the Pentagon".

We proceed to TEST these propositions, with a view to FALSIFYING the hypothesis.

Only testable and refutable hypotheses have any possible scientific value.

A million "confirmations" prove NOTHING, because there are an indefinitely great number of possible tests. Think of all the millions of observations of white swans. That could not possibly prove the hypothesis that "All swans are white."

Whereas a refutation counts AGAINST the hypothesis itself.

All that time, Aborigines in Australia were observing millions of black swans...

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

This is Scientific Method. Deal with it if you want to find the truth (as you say you do).


It is unavoidable, that we will NEVER discover 'The Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth.' Scientific Research is always open-ended. There is no 'finish-line.'

Even the perpetrators cannot know exactly what happened (especially since the operations were clearly compartmented, 'firewalled').

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

In Counter-Intelligence work, you have to deal all the time with your adversaries pitching disinformation towards you. And you do it to them all the time.

Typically, the item of disinformation has a truth-content of 95%

That is, in fact, a good deal higher than most 'good-faith' reports.

The 95% truth-content is there to "sell" the 5% disinformation 'nuggett', as it is called in the bizness...


Information Analysts have found that 95% of all 'secrets' are in fact in the public domain, in good Reference Libraries. Another 2% can be inferred from what _isn't_ there, but should be.

Another 2% can be logically inferred from what IS there.

Leaving just one percent that you cannot find.

It is logically impossible to have complete knowledge of ANY complex subject-matter.

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

This directly addresses your methodological errors and mistaken assertions.

Elementary human error is present in all of our "fact-bases." CIA analysts can read down seven layers of meaning within a given text.

Whether you can understand this is your problem. If you don't or can't, your progress will be unnecessarily slow and full of mistakes.

And you really don't want that, do you, Craig?


Regards,


Anduril

PS: And I'm not writing this especially for you. Millions of people world-wide read these posts.

[painter]

[ FX: "Beware the swine that cast Perles..." ] (smiles)
...
This directly addresses your methodological errors and mistaken assertions.
...

I appreciate what you're doing, Anduril. You're obviously educated in these arts and most of us 'swine' are not (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) -- and that is a fact.

I think the simple point Craig is making is that the truth movement needs to focus more on what it has established and less on what it speculates but has little, if any, evidence to verify. The missile strike at the Pentagon hypothesis being one example. In his Debate Forum thread he has asked people who subscribe to this hypothesis to post any independently verifiable evidence they have -- and no one has, so far as I can tell. So he concludes that we can't prove it and it is therefore speculative and we should focus on what we know, not on what we don't know and can't prove.

Beyond that he is saying that evidence coming from government sources is not trustworthy. Whatever they put forward must be independently verified from non-government source. I have no reason to distrust your assertion that Aborigines were observing millions of black swans -- but if I did have a reason to distrust it -- because you had lied to me before -- could I accept your statement of evidence that not all swans are white? Of course not. I would seek independent verification of this fact. I might even have to see them for myself.

To date, we have no independently verified evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon -- and considerable reason to suspect this very notion was placed in the arena of discussion for disinformation purposes.