QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 20 2009, 09:07 PM)
There is hard evidence for a plane on the north side of the gas station.
"We know there was a plane on the north side."
"All of this "ear" evidence fits a plane."
"NONE of it is direct evidence for a missile as opposed to a plane."
"Apparently you made up the term "nuke suit" and also this fabricated "pre-requisite" because you certainly have not provided evidence for these wild claims."
"I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize if it comes off that way."
You're not coming off to me as a jerk, so no need to apologize. I undertand that you have done a great deal of hard work in establishing your position, which as mentioned earlier, I am largely not disputing.
I am not saying there was no plane. Your fly-over evidence is quite persuasive.
The main reason for my belief that there was a missile is the terminal ballistics involved in the apparent impact. Once again, I have studied this in depth and can draw no conclusion, at this time, other than that a missile impacted, exploded within and penetrated though the walls of the Pentagon, which in respect of the target involved, indicates to me the deployment of a guided penetrator.
Earwitness evidence is, in this regard, supplementary but significant in this regard. If there were no reports consistent with hearing missiles then I would be less certain one was used.
Lou Rains said (in addition to my previous quote) that, "it came in so fast, it sounded nothing like an airplane."
John Thurman prefaced his aural description with, "it didn't sound like much."
David Theall prefaced his description with, "I liken it to being downrange during training when an artillery round hits the ground."
Sheila Moody's "whistle" and Dan Fraunfelter's "strange, sucking, whirring, vacuum cleaner sound" don't seem to me to fit a jet-plane but are consistent with guided missiles, IMHO.
Tom Siebert's statement, "we heard what sounded like a huge missile", seems self explanatory.
As far as making anything up: I am sorry if my "glib" description of the Pentagon impact site procedures threw you off but I was referring to the decontamination corridor that was set up outside the Pentagon during "clean-up" and search, where decontamination personnel hosed and scrubbed down on-site personnel. The personnel (decon and on-site) were appropriately suited in Tyvek Coveralls (what I tongue in cheek referred to as "nuke-suits".) There were several photographs taken of this particular procedure in operation and there has been no attempt at "cover-up" regarding this aspect of the scenario by official channels.
A major part of the official story surrounding this particular issue is that the planes had DU parts, thus necessitating such precautions, although Boeing dispute that DU had been utilized on their planes. This means that officials might very well be "covering up" the motive
for their "precautions". (Someone's wrong, at least: Boeing and or FBI.)
Again, this is merely supplementary evidence. The terminal ballistics evidence is the crucial part of understanding all this, as far as I am concerned.
I am certainly not wanting to spread disinfo. There is far too much of that, IMO. I merely am seeking to objectively weigh all
the evidence to hand.