High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon

Yes is all I can say, more and more the stink of the perpetrator's is leaking to the public.

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

Snip~~

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

[~~]
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. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used.”
[~~]
“Dr. Sherman was downwind from the Pentagon on 9/11 and her Geiger counter readings show an extremely high reading, a reading of more than eight to ten times higher than normal,” said Moret, also an expert in the cause and effects of depleted uranium.

“Dr. Sherman, who is well-respected radiation expert herself, then went about contacting the proper authorities in order to try and alert emergency responders of the radiation risk at the Pentagon crash site. And we have also kept photos of the Geiger counter readings in order to verify what Dr. Sherman found 12 miles away.”

After notifying the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), experts from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI were alerted and according to Moret, radiation experts later confirmed high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash site possibly from the presence from depleted uranium or other unknown causes.

But what disturbed Moret most has been the Bush administration’s lack of concern and its failure to mount a thorough investigation into what really caused the high radiation levels, saying perhaps the findings might reveal something contrary to the official story that a jetliner rammed through 12 Pentagon walls of solid concrete.

www.arcticbeacon.com...

Why is the Bush Administration showing a lack of concern about the radiation, why did the Bush Administration stonewall and try to block the 911 investigations?

A 757 is supposed to have fit wings and all into this hole

Defense Secretary: "Lots of Warnings" Prior to 9/11
Snip~~
Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare:

"There were lots of warnings."

Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots"

[~~]

And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement:

Rumsfeld: Well, I was sitting here and the building was struck, and you could feel the impact of it very clearly, and I don't know what made me do anything I did, to be honest with you. I just do it instinctive. I looked out the window, saw nothing here, and then went down the hall until the smoke was too bad, then to a stairwell down and went outside and saw what had happened. Asked a person who'd seen it, and he told me that a plane had flown into it.
[~~]
"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. 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. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

"Missile"? What missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for sure, it deserves scrutiny.

The smoke is not coming from a burning jet as you can see in the yellow box it is a trailer burning causing the black smoke.



[edit on 19/8/2005 by Sauron]

Sauron, that was a good find! Now if only our elected Congress would do something about it! But of course they're too scared to stand up for themselves, the pathetic whimps!

Of course it was a uranium missile! Why else did they have all the clean up crew wearing protective clothing? Why else did they have a special crew who had to clean off the people's boots at the end of each day and wash the dogs off too? Some people obviously knew there was radiation contamination in there and didn't want to risk people getting sick because it would eventually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a missile. Truth is some of the people working that first day didn't have protective clothing and were exposed to the radiation; so eventually they may get sick; and if there were any pregnant women working there at the time or in the downwind vicinity their children may have been born with birth defects, but do you think we'll ever find out about it? That would be kept under wraps too.

Uranium missile used on Pentagon...
www.rumormillnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.rumormillnews.com...

Remember after the first Gulf War the Pentagon kept denying anything about that Gulf War Sydrome? They "said" they couldn't figure it out why all the soldiers were sick...Well the doctors finally figured it out. As of this year 11,000 Soldiers have died from radiation contamination ...and now more than half (56 %) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems.

www.gulfwarvets.com... " target="_blank" class="postlink">www.gulfwarvets.com...

MOVIE (watch the first one for sure!)

beyondtreason.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">beyondtreason.com...



[edit on 19-8-2005 by ABC_123]

Extremely interesting find with a lot of great credibility. Makes you wonder what else could possibily be in store.

Ok, I just finished reading that whole article you left, seems they are saying now that 15,000 soldiers have died from radiation contamination, but the difference from what I wrote (11,000) may be that their site included the troops who fought in Afghanistan. In any case, this is something the national media should be jumping on! It's ludicrous to keep the people uniformed of such things!

where are the debunkers?
skeptics?
patriots?



great find sauron, i hope this catches some kind of heat in any media source. i was just watching the news at lunch and all im seeing is rehashed old stories with no real relative to today's worries (NY1).

yep its a very good article. i mean this website is very unbias and its not related to ani political parties.

www.arcticbeacon.com...

look at all those articles that this website uses. yep its very good trustful source.

Isn't DU used as ballast in some airliners? I'm sure I read this somewhere so I'll look for a link.

I didn't realise DU shells or even fireballs made pretty fireballs like that. Did they pile up drums of gasoline in the building in preperation?

Sorry, but it's only in the movies that you see a nice fireball like that without a gas (and it's the vapours from gasoline - not the liquid that are flammable). Real explosives don't do that. You will get a flash but that's it (and some smoke).

I can even remember seeing a program on the making of a Royal Navy recruitment video when I was a kid and even on that the said "we have to exaggerate the explosions using drums of petrol because it just isn't that exciting in real life".

So unless they used an immensely HUGE missile with a lot of petrol in it that somehow missed the attention of the witnesses and got mistaken for an airliner - I really can't see it - sorry.

I can remember a headline thread that was on the front page of ATS a few months back - here you go, posted by AboveTopSecret.com in fact:

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

Just to put it to rest.... again....

Originally posted by Britguy
Isn't DU used as ballast in some airliners? I'm sure I read this somewhere so I'll look for a link.

en.wikipedia.org...

Depleted uranium is also used in a number of civilian applications, generally where a high density weight is needed.

Such applications include sailboat keels, as counterweights and sinker bars in oil drills, gyroscope rotors, and in other places where there is a need to place a weight that occupies as little space as possible. Tungsten could be used instead, but it is much more expensive.

Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium counterweights (a Boeing 747 may contain 400–1,500kg). However there is some controversy about its use in this application because of concern about the uranium entering the environment should the aircraft crash, since the metal can oxidise to a fine powder in a fire. This was highlighted by the collision of two Boeing 747s at Tenerife Airport in 1977 when the resulting fire consumed 3000kg of the material. (Another well-known crash with DU release was the Bijlmermeer disaster in 1992 in Amsterdam.) Consequently its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft, for example both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.

here is somthing we can all look into. wow, depeleted uranium in aircraft. well there is something u dont see everyday.

Went to make another coffee and you beat me to it deltaboy

Not sure if this is still the case. One article I saw a while ago mentioned older aircraft as having DU ballast but not newer types such as the 757 and 767.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I didn't realise DU shells or even fireballs made pretty fireballs like that. Did they pile up drums of gasoline in the building in preperation?

Close enough, apparently.



Hell, they did it at Waco. As you yourself even said,

I can even remember seeing a program on the making of a Royal Navy recruitment video when I was a kid and even on that the said "we have to exaggerate the explosions using drums of petrol because it just isn't that exciting in real life".

Maybe you're forgetting what this conspiracy would mean. It would mean 9/11 was a big piece of propoganda to get us into war. That means it would have to have a very big psychological effect. They would want a lot of smoke, big fireballs, and big destruction to important buildings. The Reichstag all over again.

Did any officers or workers die when the Pentagon got hit? I always wondered that.

Consequently its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft, for example both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s.

Well that Wikopedia write-up was a nice trip back in time, very imformative...but, I doubt the airplanes used in the hijackings were made back in the early 80's; but feel free to find proof they were.

So, if there was no uranium used to build the attack planes, that only leaves one question, where did the uranium come from? Let's not speculate here by saying "Oh maybe it came from here or maybe there". Unless you worked at the Pentagon that day in some capacity or have a link to prove otherwise, opinions don't count. Why did the geiger counters register 12 miles away?

Originally posted by Nventual
Did any officers or workers die when the Pentagon got hit? I always wondered that.

Yeah, here's some info on that:

911research.wtc7.net...

I think they rigged one of those unmanned planes with a bunker buster. There is no way a standard plane can fly through 12 reinforced concrete walls, it is absolutely impossible. If it could then we wouldn't need bunker busters.

bsbray...I didn't see any mention on that page about uranium or radiation. Perhaps on the same site you meant this page?

911research.wtc7.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">explosives?

"...The Pentagon attack involved an explosive detonation. This is documented by eyewitness reports of several features of the event that can be explained by powerful explosives, but not by the impact of a jetliner and combustion of its fuel. Those features include:

A shockwave that was strong enough to knock people off their feet hundreds of feet from the center of the blast
The odor of cordite, an explosive compound
A silvery flash

Strong Shockwave
Several witnesses described a shockwave that knocked them to the ground, both inside and outside the building. Several described it as a concussion. Such a shockwave cannot be explained by the combustion of jet fuel, and indicates the detonation of an explosive. Explosive detonations produce blast pressures thousands of times stronger than hydrocarbon fireballs because explosives are oxidized by chemicals intrinsic to them whereas hydrocarbons rely on oxygen in ambient air for combustion. Consequently the chemical reaction proceeds at a much higher rate in an explosive. ..."

911research.wtc7.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">continued here...

ok, I'm not a chemical expert...does anyone know if cordite is radioactive?

Originally posted by ABC_123
bsbray...I didn't see any mention on that page about uranium or radiation. Perhaps on the same site you meant this page?

To which post are you referring? The 9/11 Research Site link I posted was in response to someone asking if anyone died from the Pentagon during the attack.

My first post on this thread was in regards to another fire apparently being set up at the Pentagon. I don't know with what it was done, or etc., but there's apparently a good bit of evidence that some trailer or something was setting out a large amount of smoke independently from the actual impact site.

I've heard that radiation was detected in large amounts after the Pentagon attack, but don't know much else about that either, aside from what's already been posted here.

Here's a Wikipedia article on cordite; it doesn't appear to be radioactive: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I think they rigged one of those unmanned planes with a bunker buster. There is no way a standard plane can fly through 12 reinforced concrete walls, it is absolutely impossible. If it could then we wouldn't need bunker busters.

If you'd hop on over to the Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread you'd quickly educate yourself on the fact that the plane went through ONE reinforced concrete wall and through a large building space (with pillars and a couple gyprock or sheetrock walls) and finally the nose gear punched through the 2nd wall (the inner wall of the 3rd ring). The Pentagon's lower 2 floors are not 3 seperate buildings, they are a common building with the floors from 3 and up being "split" into 3 seperate rings.

To which post are you referring? The 9/11 Research Site link I posted was in response to someone asking if anyone died from the Pentagon during the attack.

Ooops, I didn't notice the quote above your response;I thought you were talking about the thread topic. Truely sorry. ...(wipes the sleep from her eyes...)

Originally posted by ABC_123

Well that Wikopedia write-up was a nice trip back in time, very imformative...but, I doubt the airplanes used in the hijackings were made back in the early 80's; but feel free to find proof they were.

So, if there was no uranium used to build the attack planes, that only leaves one question, where did the uranium come from? Let's not speculate here by saying "Oh maybe it came from here or maybe there". Unless you worked at the Pentagon that day in some capacity or have a link to prove otherwise, opinions don't count. Why did the geiger counters register 12 miles away?

The 757 first entered service in Jan of 1983. The way airlines use planes it is VERY possible that the one that hit the Pentagon WAS built in 83/84. We still have 747-200s from the early 80s flying from Japan to Honolulu, and 737-200s from the same time frame, flying interisland, which is MUCH harder on an airplane. Some of those have been known to get 20,000+ cycles in a year. One cycle is one take-off/landing with the fuselage pressurized. Fortunately, we've only had one peel the top off so far. I'm just waiting for it to happen again, maybe then they'll replace the things at last. Airlines aren't going to buy new planes unless it's economically feasable, and in many cases, unless it's a much cheaper plane to fly on the same route, they'll fly them into the ground before replacing them, sometimes literally.

Anyone remember United 811? It was flying from Honolulu to Auckland, when the cargo door opened up, peeling the side from the cargo hold, up to the upper deck, sucking out several rows of seats, and killing several passengers. After the plane landed back in Honolulu, they towed it over to Hickam AFB where it sat for 6 months being repaired, after they fixed it up, they reregistered it, gave it a new tail number and started flying it from the East Coast into Europe.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Zaphod58]