It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Review of Caustic Logic's review of The PentaCon

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
ATS member Caustic Logic has posted a rather detailed review of our movie here:


Review here.


Right off the bat he frames the discussion by attempting to sway the reader's opionion of our film by calling it "troubling." Then still within the first paragraph he goes so far as to suggest that the film is "Pentagon-sponsored disinformation"! He bases this lofty, absurd, and paranoid claim SOLELY on the intro and the fact that we depicted the cause and effect of this black operation used as a pretext for war.

What's quite interesting and even hypocritical about this review is that he actually presents the witness accounts pretty fairly.

He simply has a problem with our flyover hypothesis.

Yet he fails to offer an alternative hypothesis OR to explain the anomalous flight path as reported by the eyewitnesses. In fact he doesn't even doubt the flight path or their testimony!

He provides this graphic of where the witnesses place the plane which is fairly accurate but the fat lines he uses and the fact that he left out the light poles and the damage to the building takes away from the point of how irreconcilable this testimony really is with the official story.



He even suggests that because CIT doesn't know what happened to the passengers that this takes away from the implications of this testimony! Talk about a logical fallacy.

He also suggests that the eyewitnesses themselves prove us wrong but gives no indication as to how or why he came to this ludicrous conclusion.


Here is where he sums up why he has a problem with our flim:





Nonetheless, its evidence, along with the recently-released Flight 77 FDR evidence might have forced me to rethink the Pentagon attack and start allowing for a second plane. But even that isn’t the case made here - their theory is much simpler and dumber than even that. By denying the actual attack plane altogether in another frivolous overflight theory that treats the actual attack and its victims (both on the plane that hit and in the building that was hit) as secondary factors to explain away, they blew any chance of convincing me of this new flight path.


What?? How are we treating anything as "secondary"? We are merely presenting data and providing a hypothesis based off that data. We have no reason to speculate beyond that. Caustic Logic isn't using very much "logic" in this deceptive review. This is not Citizen Investigation Team's flight path. It is the EYEWITNESS flight path. So what CL is saying is that he is refusing to accept this quadruple corroborated testimony because he doesn't like CIT's hypothesis. He calls our hypothesis "dumb" because it's "simple". Why would a more complex hypothesis be smarter?

Caustic Logic seems to favor a "two plane" hypothesis over our flyover hypothesis. How he thinks this is more feasible is beyond me. Wouldn't one of those two planes have to still fly over the building? Is he suggesting that both planes hit the building? Why didn't any witnesses see two planes?

It does seem as though people who have a problem with our movie are the ones that have their own hypothesis to push and are trying to defend it against this evidence.

But the hypothesis should be secondary. This testimony is FATAL to the official story no matter how you explain the details of what happened. It proves the low flying passenger jet can not be what caused the physical damage.

In this absurd hitpiece CL is clearly trying his hardest to deflect attention AWAY from the eyewitnesses and the problems the north of the citgo claim holds for the official story while FOCUSING attention on CIT and our hypothesis so the reader walks away thinking......."that's crazy".

Why would any logical 9/11 truth movement "researcher" do such a thing?

My challenge to Caustic Logic:

Post here your COMPLETE hypothesis here as to what happened at the Pentagon in light of the testimony we have presented.

Let's see how less crazy or "dumb" it is.




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I would like to add that I don't really think that CL has a hypothesis at all.

He is merely creating the impression he is sympathetic to the truth movement when in reality his goal here is to deflect attention from the eyewitness testimony and focus attention on CIT and our "dumb" hypothesis.

Read this again:



By denying the actual attack plane altogether in another frivolous overflight theory that treats the actual attack and its victims (both on the plane that hit and in the building that was hit) as secondary factors to explain away, they blew any chance of convincing me of this new flight path.



What does any of that have to do with the flight path? Can you see what an absurd logical fallacy this statement is? What does this testimony OR our hypothesis have to do with the victims (he is appealing to emotion)? Why should WE have to convince him? Why didn't the eyewitnesses convince him? Why is he making this about CIT while downplaying the incredible strength of this quadruple corroborated testimony?

It's so transparant.


"The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize."



This is EXACTLY what this hitpiece is designed to do.










[edit on 6-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
This'll take a few minutes... Glad to see you running damage control here and giving me a chance to reply.

'troubling" has a double meaning here. troubling to the official story at first glance, troubling to me 'cause it almost works, troubling to the Truth movement becuase it gives us more BS to sort thru.

The intro observations leading to charge of Pentagon disinfo were a bit flippant, just the feeling I got. I stand by it as circumstantial evidence. It feels suspicious.

I admit I don't have a ready hypothesis to explain the eyewitness stories. I could guess
a) actual plane, the one and only, which does leave all the damage as a secondary factor to explain however - a bomb laden with 757 parts and bodies inserts these in the building and the light poles were planted. It's possible, but then anything is.
b) A second fake-out plane - but you're right, this makes no sense
c) confused recollections, tho this seems unlikely except in Paik's case.
d) a hologram?
c) lies - I hate to say it but it's the easiest explanation

Re: flyover: Why did radar controllers report seeing the signal end at the building rather than passing on? And how well could it really blend in w/air traffic as all flights were landing? "unidentified plane leaving the pentagon's airspace w/no transponder etc, please land at nearest airport."

You questions do not invalidate your hypotheseis, it's just that I feel a hypothesis with such questions shouldn't be followed by words like "“this is enough evidence to cast doubt on all of the circumstances surrounding 9/11.” well, the words actually look fair enough like that, "doubt" is great, but the implication is of more than simple doubt. It seems to be saying "we've gutted the official story." Too much certainty "this could not be what transpired," etc.

Re: graphic: That's where I said the witnesses almost prove you wrong - not really I guess, but I was struck with the contrast between the simple, logical official path, and the similar but inconguous paths drawn out for you. It's almost as if they weren't all seeing this for real, just drawing something north.

I wanted to show building damage, but felt it would clutter the pic. maybe I will go back and do that, especially since that damage followed the official path and clarifies that anything on your path would've flown over. No confusion intended there. I meant to discredit the northerly path in relation to the actual attack I've been studying for years.

My implication may have been unfair. After all memories aren't perfect. And sorry for any other errors or unfair things in there.

And while I've got your attention, Jack, i was curious why the video didn't call on the FDR animation provided to your brother org by the NTSB via FOIA requests even though it verifies this path? I found that strange.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Oh, and thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I wanted to add that as an eternal skeptic, I believe anything's possible and your case is at least semi-compelling. I have far too many questions remaining, like the bodies (supp) found on-site, the landing gear and other plane parts inside, how the taxi driver was compelled to play along with the fds smashing up his car, etc.

It's not just that these are unanswered as that so far it doesn't seem anyone really tried very hard. but then again I only saw the short version and haven't looked much at your threads here for deeper explanations. I'll at least skim it, call me irresponsible if you will. i proritize. Anthing worthy of revision I'll duly note.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Damage control? That's what your review is doing for the perps.

That was a blatant and poorly done hitpiece CL. Since you admit that you were hasty, and "flippant" I respectfully request that you completely remove it and write a new one after you watch the movie again and think about it some more.

BTW I wouldn't call it "flippant" to accuse someone of being "pentagon-sponsored disinfo". That is serious. It is 100% false. And you are out of line. I repectufully request that you retract it.

But listen to my next words loud and clear:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE FLYOVER HYPOTHESIS.

This is about the groundbreaking testimony we have obtained.

Even you can't admit that you don't believe them. Lying? Come on! 2 Pentagon cops and 2 immigrant citizens and you are going to suggest they would lie to counter the official story?

You know you don't believe that.

So yes, this corroborated testimony is PROOF that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is PROOF that the plane can not be what produced the physical evidence.

I don't care if you think the plane flew over, was a hologram, dissolved in thin air, or went through a space-time continuum......if you believe these witnesses you MUST admit that it didn't hit that building.

Dig?



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
In regards to the FDR; the animation certainly is featured in the Researcher's Edition. The Smoking Gun version is about the north of the Citgo testimony (which we say in the film).

But even in the RE we don't go into too much detail about the FDR because that is not what we studied.

Pilot's for Truth has however so we refer people to them.


Does that make us potential "Pentagon-sponsored" shills?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Jack while I don't think that you are a disinformation agent. I do have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions at this stage.

Heres why I'm not sold on your theory yet.
You have failed to explain why the plane wasn't detected on Radar after it flew over the Pentagon. Attentively(SP?) you have failed to produced any witness who saw a low flying airliner after the attack on the Pentagon.

You are unable to explain why apart from the four witness you interviewed no one else saw the plane take the flight path you claim the plane flew.
You haven't proved that the impact of the crash couldn't of caused the light poles to fall.

On another note it is the job of reviews to dye sect your video the burden of proof lies with the makers of the video.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   
First a final thanks for the early heads up on your response so we could have this little CHAT.

I have been drained lately and only at maybe 85% brain power - and I realize the charges I've leveled are serious. I'm afraid I perhaps am "out of line," but not too worried about it. You guys will live. chill. For my own reputation's sake and for fairness I will review and update the piece and quickly. It won't get any harsher but probably not too much softer either.

It's easier to say with people I've never interacted with (Hufschmid, say, or Von Kleist), and harder when we're exchanging some rather harsh words. But this fells like the same disinfo i've sworn to detect and deter. I'm not saying who's pulling who's strings or who works for who. I take you as who you say you are; but perfectly honest people in the defense system were duped and misdirected into helping allow the 9/11 attacks thru, after all. I'm just looking at the final outcome - this fits a pattern I'm not calling your witnesses liars either, just laying it out as a possibility. You were hoping I'd come out and say it and you know it, so you could attack me for attacking them. We all have our strategeries. I let on to my weaknesse arly on, admit where I might be wrong, show that maybe I'll back down - then you come on strong and try to push me down. Then I let you know I know I don't have to and won't unless I feel like it.

It's a hit piece? Let people see it for what it is then. I'm covering for the perps? Yeah, that's what they said I'd be doing at the job interview. Duh! My creds are good, I just hate bad evidence. I write about it. I speculate and when possible illustrate or even 'prove." No law against that. As of late last year flawed pentagon attack theories are my beat and this comes with the territory for guys in your line of work.

I'll check if I've violated any rules, etc., but otherwise just ignore me if you have to or attack me bac and elaborate on my possible gov. shill connections, whatever. No law against that either.

Have a nice Wednesday.




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Okay, one more post, cause feelings are high and I've been a smart-ass.

I also meant to say about the disinfo charges, that's just how I think. i got the feel, had to mention it. Maybe I'm just over-paranoid. But these intuitive things play a big part in my research. I'm softening the tone on that but the mention stays. Sorry for any personal offense. i now it's rough on your end these days.

Also, i did elaborate on how and why some witnesses might've lied. MIGHT'VE! And fixed misstatements re:the FDR. Thanks for the tip, it IS in the RE. Cool.

Otherwise I think we're about where we should be.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The FDR is irrelevant to the eyewitness testimony.

They do NOT match.

Pilot's for truth has determined the FDR to have been altered.

Anyway.....thanks for revising, I appreciate that, but it's still garbage.

Let me ask you a question CL.

Look deep in your heart and soul for the answer to this question.

Do you personally BELIEVE the jist of the testimony from these 4 witnesses that the plane was fatally off course from the physical damage flight path? Or do you still personally believe the plane took the complete opposite path from what they all saw and toppled the light poles etc.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Jack while I don't think that you are a disinformation agent. I do have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions at this stage.

Heres why I'm not sold on your theory yet.
You have failed to explain why the plane wasn't detected on Radar after it flew over the Pentagon. Attentively(SP?) you have failed to produced any witness who saw a low flying airliner after the attack on the Pentagon.


My "theory" is irrelevant. The quadruple corroborated eyewitness testimony of the placement of the plane is what's relevant. There are official reports of a plane "veering off" simultaneously within 3 to 5 seconds after the explosion. Are you calling those reports a lie? Did radar data show this plane?



You are unable to explain why apart from the four witness you interviewed no one else saw the plane take the flight path you claim the plane flew.


No other witness had the vantage point to tell! ALL witnesses at the citgo station place the plane on the north. No witness in the entire investigative body of evidence specifically claims the plane was on the south of the citgo.



You haven't proved that the impact of the crash couldn't of caused the light poles to fall.


Huh? That is not a valid assertion and is not accepted as a possibility by any researcher on either side of this debate. Besides ALL of the physical evidence/damage to the building is in that same trajectory. This would be impossible with a plane on the north of the station.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
There are official reports of a plane "veering off" simultaneously within 3 to 5 seconds after the explosion. Are you calling those reports a lie? Did radar data show this plane?


I'm asking if the plane was detected on radar or flew low after allegedly flying over the Pentagon.




No other witness had the vantage point to tell! ALL witnesses at the citgo station place the plane on the north. No witness in the entire investigative body of evidence specifically claims the plane was on the south of the citgo.


I already know what the Witness that you interviewed said. That dosnt change the fact that other witness contradict elements of your story.




Huh? That is not a valid assertion and is not accepted as a possibility by any researcher on either side of this debate.


That just means no one has asked the question.

You have to prove that some kind of after shock from the crash couldn't of caused the poles to fall.
Unless your afraid that the corner stone of your case wont hold you should have no problem with proving that only the plane hitting poles could have brought them down.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Study ALL the physical damage.

NONE of it could have been created from a plane on the north side.

From ASCE report:




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Jack now your trying to divert away from the points I raised. If you need time to properly address the points I raised that is fine just give me a time frame. If your not prepared to address the points I raised then that would indicate that your unwilling to deal with anything that dosnt fit your claims.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Sorry dude but I am not going to waste my time arguing about wing vortices knocking down the poles when the damage to the pentagon itself renders that discussion moot.

Think of a better argument and I will address it.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
OK you don't want to address possible reasons for the poles falling over and you have also ignored my question about the plane appearing on Radar or being seen after it flew over the Pentagon.

Since such questions are being ignored I have to conclude that your claims will fall apart if the questions are answered. For those who question the governments story your video is a step backwards.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
OK you don't want to address possible reasons for the poles falling over and you have also ignored my question about the plane appearing on Radar or being seen after it flew over the Pentagon.

Since such questions are being ignored I have to conclude that your claims will fall apart if the questions are answered. For those who question the governments story your video is a step backwards.


Popper's law of falsifiability.

You simply set your goalposts too high for any opponent to make and claim victory.

How does ANY of us really know anything about the radar data?

What's the chain of command? Is it impossible for the perps to control this?

Your claim about the light poles is a logical fallacy because it ignores all the other physical damage which is just as relevant.

You are reaching.

None of what you are talking about is relevant to the eyewitness testimony we present anyway.

Come back when you are willing to discuss the topic at hand.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Popper's law of falsifiability.
You simply set your goalposts too high for any opponent to make and claim victory.
How does ANY of us really know anything about the radar data?


What ?
Are you on drugs ?
I just want some straight answers .
Well an air traffic controller who was tracking the flight may have noticed that the plane re appeared on radar or a new plane appeared in the area just after the attack .
If the plane flew low after flying over the Pentagon then chances are someone saw it.

You cant expect anyone to believe that it is unreasonable to ask for some idea of what happened to the plane after it flew over the pentagon. Currently it seems to have flown out of existence.

I don't expect you to provide the planes destination just some idea of what happen to it.



What's the chain of command? Is it impossible for the perps to control this?


I don't follow your question.
Are you asking if it is possible to fake radar readings ?
Are you asking who is responsible for air traffic controllers in terms of the chain of command ?



Your claim about the light poles is a logical fallacy because it ignores all the other physical damage which is just as relevant.


Now either you haven't understood what I have posted or you need to read what I post properly.

The possibility I put forward is that the impact of the crashed caused a ripple type effect kind of like dropping a stone into a pond expect the effect would have been underground.
If this isn't possible I want to know why instead of giving me an answer you have given me the run around.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I talked to the eyewitnesses. If you think you can get a hold of the air traffic controllers then by all means go right ahead. My guess is even if you can get a hold of them they won't talk to you. Plus what about the data? How do you get a hold of that to verify their claims? What about the other planes in the area including one that was reportedly following the jet and veered away just after the explosion? How do you know what planes are what? Go for it dude but this wasn't my line of inquiry.

If there was a "ripple effect" from the blast that knocked the poles down then why did it ONLY knock the poles down that were in the physical damage flight path? What about the poles right next to them?

(green dots are poles that weren't downed)



Plus you still have the pesky problem of the damage to the building not being in line with a plan on the north of the citgo.

This renders your wild ripple effect speculation moot.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Jack as for the light poles I would say that you are correct concerning a ripple effect now that you have answered my question. As for the radar data and the air traffic controllers I cant make any guarantees living outside of the US might make things a little harder. If I find anything of relevance I will post the info or U2U you.



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join