Reply #132: You Would Seem, Mr. Seat [View All]

Sorely afflicted with an affinity for the capillary, which you cannot expect everyone to share, and play along with. You have asked a series of questions you seem to attach great importance to, that really have no relevance to anything important. It seems that you are of the view that a great presence of depleted uranium at the Pentagon establishes that the hijacked jetliner did not strike that building, as the construction of that machine did not include that material: whether you worship at the church of the cruise missile and military jet striking the Pentagon, or the temple of the substitition of a weaponized jetliner containing shaped-charge and depleted uranium ordnance, remotely controlled or otherwise, you have not yet disclosed sufficient of your dogmas that an outsider might fairly judge. You seem to feel these questions point to answers that will establish whichever cultus you adhere to, but in fact, they do nothing of the sort.

What you must do, Mr. Seat, to establish your faith as fact is to prove that there is a great quantity of depleted uranium contamination at the Pentagon. This you have failed entirely to do; indeed, you have failed at it so spectacularly as to leave it evident you have been unable to find any evidence supporting the proposition. The available reports boil down to a statement that "a pile of rubble" at the site of the impact showed some radioactivity, and two reports of radioactivity at points widely seperate in space and time from the site of the impact. The only tie in any of these reports to depleted uranium comes from reports of a query directed to an EPA official about the "pile" at the crash site. He is widely reported by those hewing to the peculiar sort of views you do as having said this was probably from depleted uranium in the jetliner, which was an erroneous statement, but one that, since many people who know little detail of the various types and constructions of jetliners do have a hazy awareness that material is often used in them, falls easily into the category of normal and expected human error under press of circumstance. It is certainly nothing that establishes for a fact either that this official knew for a fact the material was present there in quantity, or that the material was in fact there: he was being asked to speculate on an early and fragmentary indication, and did so. Those persons so excited by that statement generally fail to quote it entirely, for the fellow also suggested americium could account for the report he was queried over. There is no doubt whatever appreciable quantities of that highly radioactive material were present, for it used in aircraft instruments and gauges, and in the better sorts of smoke alarms. Whatever "pile" contained remnants of the jetliner's instrument panel, or something so prosaic as a janitor's closet containing a case of spare alarms, since subjected to crush and fire, would certainly excite a radiation monitor. The reports of radiation at a great distance in space and time from the site of impact establish nothing at all, for there is nothing whatever that links the radiation measured to the site of impact. An aerosol dispersion of any great quantity of particulate radioactive material from the site of impact would take the form of a plume, and deposit discernable radiation at many points in an even distrubtion, denser towards the point of origin. You provide nothing that indicates such a pattern, let alone proves one. Yet if a great quantity of your pet material was in fact oxidized at high heat, there really ought to be such a thing, and finding it would be child's play.

It is clear, Mr. Seat, you have a great affection for Col. Rokke, but you should not allow it to color your interpertations of what other people might say concerning him. Nothing in my comments has disparaged him in the slightest; they have only pointed out what he himself has said, that he has no personnal knowledge of depleted uranium contamination at the impact site, and has simply retailed what some person who would not allow him or her self to be publicly identified told him. You have defended this as showing scruple, but in fact, Mr. Seat, if you had the courage of your convictions entire, would you not be clamoring for this person to come forward and raise the greatest public stink possible? Are they not, in your view of things, clearly concealing vital evidence in a crime of treason and murder passing belief, the sort of matter in which a person ought to count their own life and well being as nothing, but rather ought to embrace the loss of those trifles as a small price to pay for exposure of such monstrous criminals?

"That is wrong. Cling to your pathetic fables of fluid exchange."