US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pentagon

by **dbeach** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:31 pm

artic air. did'nt rummy say missle hit his palace in a possible freudian moment of truth? <a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/31...">www.arcticbeacon.com/arti...8131/31...</a> Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site. August 18, 2005 By Greg Szymanski "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." posted also at DU

by **toscaveritas** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 1:17 pm

dbeach.... link doesn't work- can you post it again please?

by **dbeach** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:31 pm

<a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/31824.htm">www.arcticbeacon.com/arti.../31824.htm</a> try this its up at DU and catchin some flak

by **toscaveritas** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:37 pm

thanks-- won't go to DU anymore-- am fed up with gatekeepers and fascist apologetics i enjoy this board alot, even though I don't often have time or energy to post. I hope I made up for lack of postings today ! lol

by **jamesredford** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>did'nt rummy say missle hit his palace in a possible freudian moment of truth?<hr></blockquote> Yes. Below is what Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld told Parade magazine: "" Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. "" (See Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik, Parade Magazine, October 12, 2001 http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... 012pm.html .) The "this building" that Rumsfeld refers to in the above is the Pentagon, as that is where the interview was conducted. And during his surprise 2004 Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the Flight 93 being shot down. Here's what Rumsfeld said that Friday: "" I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten--indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be. "" (See "Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane 'shot down' in Pennsylvania--During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story," WorldNetDaily.com, December 27, 2004 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112 .) I find this statement by Donald Rumsfeld to be particularly edifying--even beyond Rumsfeld's unintentional admittance that it was the U.S. government which brought down Flight 93 by shooting it down (as anyone who has bothered to research the matter much already knew). Since Flight 93 obviously wasn't shot down by Arab terrorists but instead by the U.S. government, "the people" which Rumsfeld is talking about having committed all the other terrorist acts which he lists in the above are none other than those who control the U.S. government (again, as anyone who has bothered to research these matters much already knows), as Rumsfeld makes quite clear that "the people" who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania" are the same group of conspirators "who attacked the United States in New York" and "attacked the Pentagon." Also edifying is the reason Rumsfeld gives for he and his fellow conspirators in committing these acts of terrorism, "Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." How very true.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 8:33 pm

two points: 1) It's acceptable usage to refer to the plane that hit the Pentagon as a "missile", since that's how it was used. 2) Rumsfeld surely knows the value of the preposterous in discrediting the truth- so why take what he's said as an "inadvertent slip of the tongue"?

by **jamesredford** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> two points: 1) It's acceptable usage to refer to the plane that hit the Pentagon as a "missile", since that's how it was used. 2) Rumsfeld surely knows the value of the preposterous in discrediting the truth- so why take what he's said as an "inadvertent slip of the tongue"? <hr></blockquote> Referring to a piloted airplane as a missile would not be proper usage, according to Merriam-Webster--considering that a piloted airplane is not "strik[ing] at a distance" (i.e., from the point of view of an actual attacker in that case), and given its Latin derivation from mittere, "to throw," "to send." Main Entry: missile Etymology: Latin missilis, from mittere to throw, send Function: noun an object (as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance <stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles> : as a: GUIDED MISSILE b: BALLISTIC MISSILE Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary --- As far as your second point, Rumsfeld could have intentionally said this as some form of PsyOps. But I simply pointed out the fact that he did indeed say it. Either way, it doesn't look good for him.

by **robertdreed** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 1:11 am

Perhps I should have said that it's borderline acceptable usage. Conceivably, a fact not lost on a psyops specialist. I still remember Rumsfeld statment about how it had become suddenly necessary for American public officials to lie henceforth in their pronouncements to the media and the American people ( presumably, in order to confuse "Al Qaeda" about their plans )- and how the next day, he took it all back... He may even have used the old "bodyguard of lies" canard, as if the endless-terror-war-to-come were all about planning D-Day, or something... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 8/20/05 11:13 pm

by **proldic** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:21 pm

From Brian Salter: New turns in the 9/11 Pentagon debate Jim Hoffman, author (with Don Paul) of the excellent Waking Up From Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes In New York City, has published a new article which marks a dramatic new chapter in the interminable debate over what happened at the Pentagon: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html">911research.wtc7.net/essa...ntrap.html</a> Hoffman was formerly a promoter of the "no-757-crash" theory, but has since reevaluated the evidence and come to the conclusion that not only is the presence of a 757 supported by the evidence, but also that the general field of no-757 theories is the result of pre-constructed disinfo trap. Over the past year, I have gone through a similar change of heart, although I feel that the notion of a disinfo campaign being prepared and lined up even before the attacks might be an overstretch. In 2002, the no-plane argument seemed quite convincing, and I joined Dick Eastman's "frameup" discussion group. By the end of that year, however, it had become clear to me that arguing the no-plane case was not as simple as it had seemed, and that sorting it out would require a lengthy and very detailed technical examination of the type of evidence that was being offered by "debunkers". Not having the time to do this myself, I left the issue and devoted myself to other areas of research. As time went on, the increasingly confident and unambiguous claims I heard from the no-757 theorists led me to believe that the sticky points and doubts had been sorted out and the case was getting stronger. Sometime earlier this year, I would begin to discover that this was a mistaken impression. I had decided after a long time to revisit the evidence, and discovered that the no-757 case had not progressed much at all, while the pro-757 case had taken some remarkable leaps forward. Hoffman covers most of the points that I find important, so I won't attempt a detailed discussion of my own. I would note, however, that Hoffman overlooked in his discussion another researcher who blazed some trails in this area, and that is Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: <a href="http://www.earth-citizens.net/pages-en/npp-sum.html.">www.earth-citizens.net/pa...-sum.html.</a> There are a number of secondary tangents and speculations in his page that are controversial, but the really essential and compelling parts are his discussion of the approach and the damage to the building. Another article worth reading for a second opinion on the Pentagon is by G. Edward Griffin (although one has to suffer a bit of gratuitous JBS-style ideological ranting, and I think Hoffman's work is technically stronger anyway): <a href="http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=burningquestions&refpage=issues">www.freedomforceinternati...age=issues</a> On the topic of deliberate disinfo ops, I recently posted these comments about the famous Pentagon security camera images in a discussion group, in response to someone pointing out the questionable origin of these from official sources: additionally, the timing of that original release is damning. it occured just days after the "hunt the boeing" craze hit the web. but these ambiguous and confusing images didn't help the "coverup", they only triggered more speculation. incomptetence theory, anyone? i wouldn't bet on it. now, the fundamental fact is: if officials needed to create a convincing and clear fake video of an airliner hitting the pentagon, rather than some blurry images that just prompted more speculation, there's absolutely no reason to doubt that they could do this. i tried to keep the benefit of the doubt about this for a long time, but i can't escape the conclusion that these images were released with the intent of *promoting* "no-plane" speculations about the pentagon. which creates a false dialectic, distracting from the truly incontestible anomalies -- such as the illogical target point, very difficult approach path, the cordite smell and severe heat & blast effects reported by several credible military personnel, indicating the use of extra explosives, etc. i.e. "no plane" is not the pentagon smoking gun -- it is the *defence* against the smoking guns! that's how i call it anyway. and if there really was no plane impact, and officials were desperate to cover it up, they would have come up with another video fake from one of the other sources, and had a perfect and undetectable fake image of a 757 impact. this would have been done by now, no doubt in my mind. the fact that it *hasn't* been done, over these three long years, says a lot about whose wild goose chase this is. IMO. The truth is that I have had these doubts about the Pentagon no-757 theories for many months, but have not discussed it because I consider it to be a genuinely complicated debate, and many of the oddities which have prompted these theories are quite real. This puts these theories in a very different category than things like the "pod" or WTC "no plane" theories which are based on virtually groundless — and generally technically incompetent — "interpretations" of images, not to mention some outright hoaxes. And despite the profusion of fallacies and errors which Hoffman has rightly pointed out, there are some examples of more rigorous and thorough work on the part of no-757 advocates, such as Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell, who present the whole body of evidence in a generally fair and non-filtered way (except, crucially, the eyewitnesses). So, I see sincerity and good intentions on the part of many Pentagon no-757 advocates, in contrast to the advocates of some of those other 9/11 "theories". At the same time, I am deeply disturbed by the level of hostility and invective towards pro-757 views that seems to have become quite widely accepted in some circles. That in itself has played a major role over time in undermining my previous confidence in the no-757 side. We are in the midst of a global political crisis, where the consequences of missteps are enormous, and something like the no-757-crash has to be absolutely incontestible in order for it to help the cause. That, it isn't — but egos and agendas seem to be conspiring to prevent acknowledgement of this. My instincts lead me to agree very strongly with Hoffman's warnings about the furor of publicity over this theory ultimately threatening to do more harm than good. <a href="http://questionsquestions.net/blog/041116pentagon.html">questionsquestions.net/bl...tagon.html</a>

by **proldic** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:47 pm

...a suspicious character imo. There are questions about credibility going back to involvment in the anti-nuke Hanford thing. ...confronted at the SF 9/11 event for handing out blantantly anti-semitic lit. Have my doubts re Szymanski as well. Like Jeff's post about the NASA thing said, it don't mean that they wouldn't put some stuff out there through these sources that is radical, too. It's just that my experience tells me that 9 times out of 10 it's fake, and the 10th time it's spun so far out there that is essentially without tactical value. In that light it's interesting to note that awhile back Moret wrote a piece about the Kissinger/NSA depop document. More info as it rolls in.

by **Qutb** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:09 pm

So when are we going to see the follow-up to the NASA/Bin Laden story, or the one before that one, or the one before that one? Szymanski stories are greeted with a yawn from me. I agree with the Brian Salters piece above, I think Flight 77 or a similar plane did hit the Pentagon. It's the trajectory of the plane that is the smoking gun, imo. Of what, I'm not sure though<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Of it not being piloted by Hani Hanjour, in any case. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **ZeroHaven** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:43 pm

oh my.. radiation would explain my "mysterious" health problems just as well as all the crap they started dumping in the water. Friends under 25 were getting all sorts of weird uterine problems. Damn, I saw with my eyeballs there wasn't a plane, never even thought about a 'missile' cuz it looked like a bomb blast. I've bitched before and I'll repeat myself. When I kept bugging the doctor that something was wrong, he was offering me Zoloft instead of testing. They shut down the main hospital right before the attacks and then cut funds from the backup. Now I wish I'd left DC sooner! damn [edit] proldic - now, the fundamental fact is: if officials needed to create a convincing and clear fake video of an airliner hitting the pentagon,  they DID! My mom swears up and down, and some of our neighbors, that they saw video on TV news showing a plane going into the pentagon. Since she'd visited me she knew very well that my morning commute went right through that building so she freaked out and called immediately. She'd left messages on both my work and home phone about how she'd seen a plane hit the pentagon and for me to call right away. When I later told her I didn't see a plane she said it was impossible to miss and there were bits of it all over. Too bad that video has never been shown since. Not a lot of VCR's in these parts anyway.. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=zerohaven>ZeroHaven</A> at: 8/21/05 3:56 pm

US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pentagon

US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pentagon

Re: US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pent

Re: US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pent

Re: US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pent

Re: US Army Major [ret} / radiation expert : Missle hit pent

Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld

Re: Rumsfeld

"No-Plane" Debate

Moret

Re: Szymanski

Re: plane

Who is online