Pentagon + Global Hawk = 911 attack

reply to post by REMISNE

Yes, and i can keep posting sites that state this.

Why bother? I acknowledged the claims. You are asserting the claims are part of the 'official story'. I am disputing that, and only that.

Unless you can post an official report confirming the EPA says DU was at the Pentagon, the claims are part of your personal conspiracy story.

That is the point. You have ZERO evidence of DU at the 9/11 Pentagon crash site.

Either the EPA were lying about the radiation being from the plane that hit the Pentagon or something other then a 757 hit the Pentagon.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Except that the EPA never said any of the sort.

According to your article, in AFP (which is NOT an official source by the way), the 757 does not contain DU (but the 747 did). Since the OS is that the Pentagon was hit by a 757, it would indeed be inconsistent for the OS to claim that there was DU from the plane at the crash site.

But you and Moret are the only one's making that claim.

Originally posted by rnaa
According to your article, in AFP (which is NOT an official source by the way),

So you do not accept AFP as an official site but yet you believe the media when it comes to the official story? You cannot have it both ways.

the 757 does not contain DU (but the 747 did).

Older 747s did carry DU, Boeing stopped using DU with the newer 747s becasue of an accidnet that involved radiation from the DU.

sci.tech-archive.net...
PENTAGON RADIATION LEVELS

Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

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.

The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and ?detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha.? This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor?s Geiger counter.

?The question is, why?? Folkers said.

If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most
likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that
allegedly hit the building.

?Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,? Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing?s 767, told AFP. ?Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.?




[edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

So you do not accept AFP as an official site but yet you believe the media when it comes to the official story? You cannot have it both ways.

It has nothing what-so-ever to do with AFP or any other media outlet. AFP is not quoting the an official EPA report or document. They are repeating hearsay comments about an unsubstantiated claim.

YOU are claiming the EPA issued an OFFICIAL statement admitting DU at the Pentagon from the crashed plane on 9/11.

Put up or shut up. That's all there is to it. Where is the EPA story?

the 757 does not contain DU (but the 747 did).


Older 747s did carry DU, Boeing stopped using DU with the newer 747s becasue of an accidnet that involved radiation from the DU.

Good. I'm glad they saw the light.

PENTAGON RADIATION LEVELS

Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

...

Which one of those 'reports' that you quote is an official EPA report?

I repeat again: I acknowledge there are claims of elevated radiation.

You are claiming the EPA has officially acknowledged this and has confirmed it came from the plane.

It doesn't do any good to repeat the claims. I acknowledge them. Get it? I know people have claimed there was elevated radiation.

Just show a link to the EPA website, or ScribD document, or court transcript, or video link or whatever where the EPA official statement is made.

I repeat: put up or shut up.

Originally posted by rnaa
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with AFP or any other media outlet. AFP is not quoting the an official EPA report or document. They are repeating hearsay comments about an unsubstantiated claim.

Kind of like the media repeats hearsay comments and unsubstantiated claims for those who believe the officail story.

Just show a link to the EPA website, or ScribD document, or court transcript, or video link or whatever where the EPA official statement is made.

www.nirs.org...
EPA does not use dose limits for its own standards for site cleanup, but rather thesame cancer risk range that it uses for chemicals and that was used during cleanup efforts after the attack on the World Trade Center (e.g., the WTC cleanup was to 10-4 risk levels).

www.epa.gov...
EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that the most detailed results to date of ongoing monitoring of drinking water in New York City provide additional reassurance that city residents are not being exposed to dangerous contaminants including asbestos, radiation, mercury and other metals, pesticides, PCBs and bacteria.

www.gao.gov...



[edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

Kind of like the media repeats hearsay comments and unsubstantiated claims for those who believe the officail story.

Exactly like media reports of any source reporting hearsay comments and unsubstiated claims. But completely unlike media reports quoting official spokemen, or official documents, or court records, or expert witnesses that can be checked.

Hearsay reports and even Eyewitness accounts add color to a report, not veracity.

www.nirs.org...

Nothing to do with the 9/11 Pentagon crash.

Score: Fail.

www.epa.gov...

Monitoring and cleanup efforts also continue at the Pentagon crash site. To date, EPA has taken 140 total samples, including ambient air samples, bulk debris analysis, silica and water discharge samples. Monitoring samples have been analyzed for asbestos and other hazardous materials. Available results continue to show that rescue workers at the disaster site are not being exposed to hazardous materials.

EPA is specifically denying exposure to hazardous materials. While this does not imply that hazardous materials are not present, it is certainly not confirming that radiation from DU is present.

Score: Fail. But congratulations on actually finding something almost relevant.

www.gao.gov...

Nothing to do with the 9/11 Pentagon crash.

Score: Fail.

So after something like 6 posts of trying to make out how radiation at the Pentagon crash site is part of the 'Official Story' and denigrating my research skills compared to your supposedly superior research skills, you have completely failed.


Your claim merely repeats the claim of a vocal anti-DU campaigner. I support her campaign, but cannot support her lying for her cause, especially about such tragic events like this. Her lie shows how desperately she wants to draw attention to the campaign, and it is both unworthy and unnecessary.

You repeating her claim without any critical review reveals your own desperation to make the world wrong and prove your own private specialness. And it is again both unworthy and unnecessary.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by rnaa
But completely unlike media reports quoting official spokemen, or official documents, or court records, or expert witnesses that can be checked.

Too bad most of the evidence and official reports have not been released.

Still waiting for real evidence that supports the official story.

EPA is specifically denying exposure to hazardous materials. While this does not imply that hazardous materials are not present, it is certainly not confirming that radiation from DU is present.

The EPA also stated it was ok for the first responders at ground zero to work there. Too bad so many of the first responders are now dying because the EPA lied about the area beiing ok to work in.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Revisiting htis after doing lots more looking into what did or did not hit the Pentagon. Even after visiting with friends and seeing their personal photos of that day I cannot say for certain there was a plane that hit the building. Even though I treasure my friend's and what they have to say along with their sincerity because they were there, there is still no definitive evidence of an airliner that struck the Pentagon on 9/11.

Some points that simply stand out and defy skeptics' explanation:

* The "nose cone hole" or punch out hole in the C ring could not have been made by an ailriner's nose section after traveling through all of that support structure along it's purported flight path into the building.

* The original impact hole seen just prior to the building collasping, was no where near the size that an airliner should have made.

* The Barb olsen phone call to her husband Ted is now confirmed as a falsehood by none other than the FBI during the Zacharia Moussousi trail.

* 2 trillion dollars missing as reported by Don rumsfeld on Sept. 10 2001 during a press conference. And the impact point of the Pentagon was exactly where those records were kept to indicate such funds/transactions were missing.

* No one, I repeat NO ONE has been able to duplicate in a frickin simulator for god sake, the speed and actions of that purported airliner on that day as it sped to the Pentagon.

Too many unanswered questions regarding the Pentagon to simply believe an airliner hit it. Best wake up people before YOU are the next statistic.

While you make a good case, could a global hawk cause the damage we have seen? Can it punch a neat hole through all the walls, while leaving an open book lying nearby untoutched?

reply to post by Cassius666


I believe that a GH was used due to the pieces outlined fitting within the illustration, nothing else fits except the sections of the Global Hawk in those depictions. An airliner does not fit nor does anything else. I mean ask yourself, what are the odds that when superimposing the outline of a GH onto the photos then having them match would be?

The initial impact point was small. Only after the building collapsed later in the evening did it provide the illusion of a bigger entry point which is what the media ran with to support the OS.

The neat holes of the famous "punch out" photo was obviously not created by the nose cone of any aircraft and that should resonate with anyone who views it with common sense. What cause it? I believe it was explosives based whatever it was, I think also it was not cause by the missle used. Perhaps it was cause by debris being concentrated by the explosives in the missle but that is just my opinion.

The damage caused to the Pentagon very well could have been cause by a GH or another type of missile. But I am convinced of the Gh notion again, due to the photos and various parts of the GH fitting within their outlines.

reply to post by mikelee


Interesting. This is a quite detailed picture of wreckage.

911research.wtc7.net...

I think we get a good idea of the size. If the global hawk was painted up, then it was painted to much the smaller size. If we find out what part of the aircraft is depicted in the picture and if the paintjob is consistent in size with one of the many airliners we can conclude the case.

reply to post by Cassius666


I think that if it was the case, and it was painted up similar like an AA airliner at that time of the morning those who saw it would simply believe they saw an AA airliner. I seriously do not believe that is out of the realm of possibilitys. That particular are ain DC is full of low flying airplanes taking off an landing, it isn't anything out of the ordinary to see one in the area.

reply to post by mikelee


Well we have a clear pic of one of the debries. A global hawk is much smaller than an AA airliner. I think by looking at the section and the paint and comparing it to the paint of an AA airliner one could tell if it is indeed the real thing, or if it is too small to be from an AA airliner.

reply to post by Cassius666


Does it ever occur to anyone that the one place on earth that it would be very difficult to get away with crashing a global hawk or other military type aircraft to substitute for a commercial jetliner would be the Pentagon in broad daylight? Where there are literally thousands of aircraft experts at the site? Unless you think everyone in the Pentagon is "in on it" not to mention the emergency crews that would probably show up for support from the nearby airport. Those guys would probably know a thing or two about airplanes also.

Like trying to sell a piece of glass as a diamond at a jewelers convetion, not going to happen.

reply to post by hooper


Yes, because everybody is convinced that it was a plane . So you are quite right, not going to happen. But like I said, we have pictures of the debries in good enough of a shape. The one I linked to you dont need to be an expert to compare it to an airliner. You get a good idea of the size and what part of the plane that is, seen as the paintjob is still on. Look at one of the airliners painted in the same way, compare it to the wreckage and we know if we have a match or a smaller craft painted up.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Cassius666

Yes, because everybody is convinced that it was a plane.

Yes, they are. Really. No fooling.

So you are quite right, not going to happen.

Thank you for the admission.

But like I said, we have pictures of the debries in good enough of a shape.

Good enough shape meaning what exactly?

The one I linked to you dont need to be an expert to compare it to an airliner. You get a good idea of the size and what part of the plane that is, seen as the paintjob is still on. Look at one of the airliners painted in the same way, compare it to the wreckage and we know if we have a match or a smaller craft painted up.

Uh, you have a match? I am not really sure what you mean.

reply to post by hooper


So they did not get away with it, in therms of fooling the people. Polls show the people who believe in the official story are a minority. You can recognize the paint of the wreckage I linked to and get an idea of the size. Just compare it to the part of an actual Airliner painted up in the same way and we see if the part is the right size or not, I really do not see what is there not to get. If you look at the painting you can tell what part of the airliner that part of the wreckage is from. If you compare that piece to an airliner that is painted in the same way you know if it is the right size or if it is too small. And no I do not have a match, but here is your chance to identify that particular piece of debrie, point out what part of the airliner it is from and if the size of the debie matches in size and scale, put the discussion to rest.

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Cassius666

So they did not get away with it, in therms of fooling the people. Polls show the people who believe in the official story are a minority.

So, how is it then that the "minority" is holding up a new investigation?

I think this is one of the funniest bits of denial that I come across.

Another person who saw the plne hit the Pentagon:




more info here -

911reports.wordpress.com...



.

reply to post by Cassius666


Compare the piece of wreckage that you linked to , with the following photograph , or even thousands of other similar photographs , and tell me it isn't a perfect match . The paint scheme is IDENTICAL , and I would even go so far as to say that the piece of wreckage came from the 'C' , in American .

You said case closed if it could be shown to be a match but , I'm betting against you on that one . Simply because there will be the "planted-wreckage" posters that will be in here shortly to assert that the government was planting aircraft parts immediately after the crash . Tell me that's not absurd ?

Then there will be the poster who will tell me that those wreckage photos from the Pentagon could be photos that were taken instead , at an aircraft boneyard , a SCRAPYARD for cryin' out loud . Do you know of any srapyards that have grassy lawns ? Oh yea , it must have been photo-shopped . How silly of me to overlook the obvious .

In short , the photo of the wreckage is a perfect match for the "C" in American . So , a letter of this size could not be painted on both sides of a GH and appear realistic . This argument was dead years ago , but the TM congregation still preaches it and it looks as if they will continue to preach it until it becomes a recognized religion (aka Cult) , and then they will preach it some more .

No , evidence will do nothing to educate the misfortunate who continue to buy into the rubbish and utter nonsense that calls itself the Truth Movement .

American Airlines wreckage . This cannot be disputed . It can only be attempted to be explained away by some silly theory such as photos from a scrapyard .

Get a Grip people .

www.airliners.net...&sid=dc25161966cc772f6aa9457edd191610

Look in the backgroud of this picture.

Letter C

Just a tad big for a missile.