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.

 

Are the citgo witnesses government plants?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Ironically enough this is the recent conclusion from Caustic Logic as he admits that it is not feasible that they could all be so drastically mistaken about the placement of the plane on the north side.

So he has accused them of being "programmed" or complicit operatives sent out to spread disinfo.

The first question that comes to mind when considering this is why would this be the least bit necessary if they literally flew a AA 757 into the building as reported?

Usually the 757 impact conspiracy theorists think the notion that any witnesses were plants who fabricated their accounts to support the official story is crazy.

But CL has decided that they only planted witnesses to CONTRADICT the official story 6 years later.

That's not caustic, that's BACKWARDS logic.

So.....Adam......to be clear; when watching the testimony we present you honestly think it makes more sense for you to accept the testimony of Lloyd England as valid while asserting that all the citgo witnesses are either "programmed" or "operatives"?

Of course if they were this would also prove 9/11 was an inside job. Don't you feel like it's your duty to expose them? Shouldn't the citgo witnesses and Edward Paik be held accountable?

Do you really find all of these guys....




more believable than these guys?




Also......on Loose Change forum you said this when you agreed that it is not feasible for all citgo witnesses to be simply mistaken:


It's ludicrous, which is why my best guess is they're lying. I know it's not a popular theory, and it almost feels like cheating, breaking some unwritten rule about how we all approach this. Their being told "go testify a north path" would explain the cooroboration of their flawed and contradictory accounts on the one key element (not enough coaching for all points I guess) and opens the possibility of others being compelled forth as well to bolster the story to something that would look more solid.

This is fascinating stuff, and I thank CIT for bringing it to my attention. This is some of the hardest evidence yet for military deception of some sort.
source


Please clarify what you mean by the underlined part.

How are their accounts "flawed" or "contradictory" and what could you possibly have meant by the second part?

To bolster WHAT story so WHAT could look more solid for WHAT?

Do you deliberately try to not make sense or not be clear what your point is?





[edit on 11-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I got a HUGE laugh from your video appearance here, Craig:

www.thestream.tv...

So do all the rational people at JREF.

I lost count of the number of times you contradicted yourself, repeated debunked nonsense, refused to take responsibility for dealing with ALL of the evidence, and resorted to the classic 9/11 Denier dodge of claiming that it's not your responsibility to say what happened to AA77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon.

The last one alone got Gerard Holmgren sent home packing in 2002 and he's never recovered since!

You can delight in rapidly taking Dylan Avery's place as the poster boy for 9/11 Denial, Craig. Enjoy!



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Keep plugging it all you want, thanks!

The "rational people at jref" haven't been able to come up with a single legitimate quote to criticize and have responded exclusively with irrelevant, superficial, childish remarks.

I was quite lucid and on point.

You have nothing which is why you didn't bother to cite an example.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Just the other day CL described himself as a....



"...old-school LIHOP pre-LC truther"
source


Sorry CL.....you can not reconcile your position of the citgo witnesses being "programmed" or government plants with a LIHOP position.

This evidence destroys your entire belief system no matter how you slice it.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I was wondering if you'd ever get around to starting this discussion- I think it needs to be had, so Props on doing so. I don't have a lot of time today. So quickly:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The first question that comes to mind when considering this is why would this be the least bit necessary if they literally flew a AA 757 into the building as reported?


Necessary for WHAT is the key question. If they were trying to get us to clearly believe the official story, this would not help. Nor would holding videos, debris photos, clear tail number ID, slipping and saying 'missile,' etc. The case is counter-intuitive enough already, and confusion and doubt are easy enough to sow (the ground floor?).Somehow this has happened, and I doubt it's not JUST the 'kookines' of CTers that's responsible.


Usually the 757 impact conspiracy theorists think the notion that any witnesses were plants who fabricated their accounts to support the official story is crazy.

personally I've always felt it was possible, but the main reason is it's not necessary. They got all the coaching they needed by seeing the plane. But seeing the possibility of plants actually being sent out after the fact makes me wonder about others, especially those official story supporters whose testimny has become troublesome and full of contradictions, thus helping you guys out.


So.....Adam......to be clear; when watching the testimony we present you honestly think it makes more sense for you to accept the testimony of Lloyd England as valid while asserting that all the citgo witnesses are either "programmed" or "operatives"?


Nope. It'd be a complex game if so, and I don't put stock in any one account provving this or that. Lloyd's account doesn't add up, but the official story of a 757 impact still does anyway, IMO.


Do you really find all of these guys....
more believable than these guys?


Yes. but still not 100% believable.


Also......on Loose Change forum you said this when you agreed that it is not feasible for all citgo witnesses to be simply mistaken:


It's ludicrous, which is why my best guess is they're lying. I know it's not a popular theory, and it almost feels like cheating, breaking some unwritten rule about how we all approach this. Their being told "go testify a north path" would explain the cooroboration of their flawed and contradictory accounts on the one key element (not enough coaching for all points I guess) and opens the possibility of others being compelled forth as well to bolster the story to something that would look more solid.

This is fascinating stuff, and I thank CIT for bringing it to my attention. This is some of the hardest evidence yet for military deception of some sort.
source


Please clarify what you mean by the underlined part.

How are their accounts "flawed" or "contradictory" and what could you possibly have meant by the second part?

Play dumb if you like. Lagasse saw a silver AA jet w/red letters, Brooks a whitish UA plane w/blue letters. That's the big one, but there are others. Brooks really sounds like he's making it up. Turcios was what - outside, right? His acount has it over the station not well north of it. Paik saw the official path and just got a bit confused I think, so he hardly counts as lying.


To bolster WHAT story so WHAT could look more solid for WHAT?

Do you deliberately try to not make sense or not be clear what your point is?


There's a lot of subtle psychology involved in what they say and how they say it, and I don't want to read too much in, but they all agree in contradicting the evidence, so I call them flawed, if in way that suggests coordination. Therefore they bolster the old Lagasse-Eastman story to the point where, due to absence of counter-claim specific enough for you, it's now claimed all witnesses saw the plane on the north side.

Hogwash.

Not that I can prove anythig here, that's just my uninformed insane opinion or possibly my disinfo neutralization, and you have RE and those new witnesses to promote, so perhaps you should just ignore me and keep on trucking. I'd like to see the new stuff myself when it's ready, and I'll have more opinions.



[edit on 12-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
A couple more points:
You said if the witnesses were lying

this would also prove 9/11 was an inside job. Don't you feel like it's your duty to expose them? Shouldn't the citgo witnesses and Edward Paik be held accountable?


It would prove the PentaCon was an inside disinfo job with (unwitting I presume) outside assistance, very anti-Pentagon people who'd mask the campaign's origins. I don't worry much about why they would be lying in this scenario. There are inducements, and they have their reasons. My gripe is with those who set the thing in motion, and with those who stepped into the traps and kept on running through them heedless. If my hunch is true, and I'm actually trying to be open minded.

Which reminds me: I really don't BELIEVE The disinfo witness angle, it's just far more plausible and worth considering than the attention it's gotten warrants. It's a possibility that must be considered. As far as I can tell, you guys never have aired these concerns yourself in any meaningful way (your initial doubts about their accounts doesn't count - I mean plants as they talked to you and said 'north.') This is another troubling reality that forces me to question CIT.

Sorry, it's just how it is.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The physical evidence alone proves the plane didn't hit the building and is what got us investigating to begin with.

The eyewitnesses clinch it and remove all possible doubt.

If you went there and found unknown witnesses on your own who independently confirm the north side over and over you would not doubt it either.

It's easy to sit behind your computer and speculate nonsense like that (even though it counters your own beliefs) but I was there. I talked to them. I know all the details about HOW I obtained this data and the notion that it was all a complex set up TO CONTRADICT a story that allegedly happened exactly as reported is simply absurd.

The fact that you are literally saying now that you don't even believe this crap that you assert is mind boggling to me.

You already publicly SAID that it's not feasible for them all to be simply mistaken about the north side.

Were you lying about your beliefs for the sake of discussion then as well?

Do you ever tell the truth about what you believe?

Were you also lying to the "newby" at LCF the other day when you announced yourself as a....


"...old-school LIHOP pre-LC truther"
source


Sorry CL.....you can not reconcile your position of the citgo witnesses being "programmed" or government plants with a LIHOP position.

This evidence destroys your entire belief system no matter how you slice it.


[edit on 12-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The physical evidence alone proves the plane didn't hit the building and is what got us investigating to begin with.


Yes, I've heard that. You love the throw out the word 'prove.'


The eyewitnesses clinch it and remove all possible doubt.


All possible doubt? From your head maybe.


If you went there and found unknown witnesses on your own who independently confirm the north side over and over you would not doubt it either.


Again with the going there crap. IF I had gone and met and filme what you did, I'd doubt the testimony and would have made a very different video. Very different. And somehow I doubt anyone would have talked to me. But they let you film the whole plot being exposed and walk away with tape in hand. Didn't you ever find that odd?


It's easy to sit behind your computer and speculate nonsense like that (even though it counters your own beliefs)

Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, since I've appointed you acountant of my beliefs and you have better access than me


but I was there. I talked to them. I know all the details about HOW I obtained this data

I have no doubt you went there and thanks for sharing the results.

and the notion that it was all a complex set up TO CONTRADICT a story that allegedly happened exactly as reported is simply absurd.

Well alright then, if it's absurd, then I guess it's not worth considering. I'm just what you might call an absurdist.


The fact that you are literally saying now that you don't even believe this crap that you assert is mind boggling to me.

As is, to me, your ability to believe what you want 100% and everything else 0%. That's not rational thinking, it's religious thinking.


You already publicly SAID that it's not feasible for them all to be simply mistaken about the north side.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios I hve to doubt were all mistaken on that point, indeed.


Were you lying about your beliefs for the sake of discussion then as well?
Do you ever tell the truth about what you believe?


I don't know. Could you check for me?


Were you also lying to the "newby" at LCF the other day when you announced yourself as a....


"...old-school LIHOP pre-LC truther"
source


Sorry CL.....you can not reconcile your position of the citgo witnesses being "programmed" or government plants with a LIHOP position.


I can and have. LIHOP with psyops after. It explains everything. Could even explain on-site plants at impact, tho I don't know if there were any. But years later, sure, why not? It's sure got the movement all tripped up again.


This evidence destroys your entire belief system no matter how you slice it.

Thanks for the update. Somehow I don't believe you, but again, you're the expert on beliefs. I'm just focussing on possibilities and probabilities and logic in an extremely clouded multi-front battlefield.

Again, you might just want to ignore me. If you want to know when I'm lying, why not just presume always? Then just tune it out. After all you got 'proven PROOF', so need to worry.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Again with the going there crap. IF I had gone and met and filme what you did, I'd doubt the testimony and would have made a very different video. Very different. And somehow I doubt anyone would have talked to me. But they let you film the whole plot being exposed and walk away with tape in hand. Didn't you ever find that odd?


I made phone calls. Anyone could have done it.




and the notion that it was all a complex set up TO CONTRADICT a story that allegedly happened exactly as reported is simply absurd.

Well alright then, if it's absurd, then I guess it's not worth considering. I'm just what you might call an absurdist.


It certainly goes against your own LIHOP logic that's for sure. Perhaps it's your schizophrenia showing through.





The fact that you are literally saying now that you don't even believe this crap that you assert is mind boggling to me.

As is, to me, your ability to believe what you want 100% and everything else 0%. That's not rational thinking, it's religious thinking.


I only believe things that have been proven by evidence. To refuse to accept scientific evidence is religious thinking.

The fact that you assert conspiracy theories you don't even believe and present them as your belief is plain old dishonest.

You very seriously and publicly stated quite clearly just the other day that it is not feasible the citgo witnesses could all be mistaken and that they HAD to be "programmed" or "lying".

Then you said here to me that you don't even believe it.

So were you lying about your belief when you said that or did you change your mind already?





You already publicly SAID that it's not feasible for them all to be simply mistaken about the north side.

Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios I hve to doubt were all mistaken on that point, indeed.


Were you lying about your beliefs for the sake of discussion then as well?
Do you ever tell the truth about what you believe?


I don't know. Could you check for me?


See? I asked you again above because you refused to answer the first time.

Once again...You SAID that it is not feasible they could all be mistaken meaning they HAD to be "programmed" or "lying". Were you lying about your belief when you said that?


Why are you so evasive about your beliefs with me? You are seriously contradicting yourself which in effect has shown you to be dishonest.




Were you also lying to the "newby" at LCF the other day when you announced yourself as a....


"...old-school LIHOP pre-LC truther"
source


Sorry CL.....you can not reconcile your position of the citgo witnesses being "programmed" or government plants with a LIHOP position.


I can and have. LIHOP with psyops after. It explains everything. Could even explain on-site plants at impact, tho I don't know if there were any. But years later, sure, why not? It's sure got the movement all tripped up again.


For what? The world bought 9/11 hook and sinker.

Besides LIHOP isn't even pysops to begin with!

Do you even know what LIHOP means?

Let it happen on purpose.

That means that they had NO PART in the execution of the operation, that everything physically happened as reported, and that they simply knew in advance but looked the other way.

You can NOT reconcile random programmed operatives right down to gas station attendants and mechanics 6 years later with such a passive charge.

To let it happen means that they would WANT all video footage and details about the attack to be publicized.

No amount of planted disinfo or cointelpro activities would be the least bit necessary in a LIHOP scenario.





This evidence destroys your entire belief system no matter how you slice it.

Thanks for the update. Somehow I don't believe you, but again, you're the expert on beliefs. I'm just focussing on possibilities and probabilities and logic in an extremely clouded multi-front battlefield.

Again, you might just want to ignore me. If you want to know when I'm lying, why not just presume always? Then just tune it out. After all you got 'proven PROOF', so need to worry.



I'm sure you would like that but as long as you continue to spew your reckless attacks and convoluted yet consistent neutralization efforts you are a detriment to truth and justice and therefore will be addressed.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Okay Craig, I see what you're saying.

First let me explain that I don't believe believe anything 100%. I'm a doubter by nature, and my beliefs are a matter of degrees. However, yes, I do believe, more or less based on all available evidence, that the Pentagon was hit with a 757 (97% sure). And therefore I believe your witnesses are mistaken and yes, in a way that seems to preclude mere coincidence. Therefore my best guess is they are lying (I dunno, 85% sure?). As for who put them up to it and why I can only guess, but seeing how Lagasse and Brooks, the core of the testimony (no matter who was introduced to you first), are employees of the Pentagon, that seems the most likely avenue (all told maybe a 70% certainty here).

The apparent dishonesty here stems from a desire to demote that certainty in favor of dialog - y'know, just throwing out possibilities. But if you must kow where I stand I am pretty sure. And no matter how likely the possibility that the witnesses are plants and you guys walked into a trap, it's certainly higher than the 0% you guys seem to have assessed the risk at.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The irony is uncanny.

The way you are forced into asserting a wild conspiracy theory involving planted operatives and "psyops teams" with no evidence to back it up because you are unwilling to accept the evidence we present implicating the use of planted operatives and psyops teams.

All of that to defend the official version of the event.

Talk about hypocritical logic!



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Ah yes, another poo flinging poo pong match. I've about had my fill of these. Too bad the FBI were on scene so very quicky to confiscate hard evidence from the two monitoring cams. Carry on.




top topics



 
2

log in

join