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.

 

Craig Ranke vs Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) debate

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Props to Adam for finally mustering the courage to accept my challenge to a recorded debate. He has declined to discuss the info over the phone in the past but the fact that he finally agreed does add a notch of credibility/legitimacy to his truth seeking efforts in my opinion.

Of course his position on the evidence is still as ludicrous as ever and it was actually quite strange to hear him verbalize it.

The most notable point in this regard is how he believes the most likely scenario is that all of the CITGO witnesses are part of the conspiracy and are planted operatives put out to spread disinformation that proves the official story false.

The irony in this is that he has to accept this wild conspiracy theory (with no evidence) as a method to dismiss what he asserts is a wild conspiracy theory (that is supported with strong evidence).

What is also strange is that although this is his working hypothesis.....he seems to think that it is merely a "possibility" to "keep in mind".

So in essence, he states that ALL possibilities are unlikely!


Google Video Link




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
CL,

How come you said your Frustrating Fraud blog had "ended" and even launched a brand new LIHOP blog aptly titled "They Let It Happen" yet you have chosen to continue your Frustrating Fraud blog after all?



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Well, that was interesting, even if a little one-sided.

Craig raised an excellent point on the issue of "proof" and the validity of eye-witness testimony. I work on the basis of "weight of evidence" whereby if 3 people say x but 10 people say y, then y is likely to be correct, but I'd look at why 3 people said x. From that I'd determine if x or y is correct (or most likely) based on z evidence.

In this instance, there are far too many witnesses saying the same thing. The few witnesses that tow the official story are dubious due to who they work for, were the only version published in newspapers, and if you read their numerous reports carefully, are full of basic factual differences in each version of their account. In the case of the CIT witnesses, they're basically the same with respect to the main details in each account.

It was interesting to hear that only one person reported seeing the light pole in the cab after the event, yet no-one reported seeing the light poles actually getting hit, and further, wouldn't even testify that they saw them actually being hit, even though they had an otherwise good view of this.

Did any of them actually report that they saw the aircraft hit the building? I know this is the key element, and you're likely to have asked, but plenty of people seem to have seen "a" jet fly over, but no-one saw it hit the light poles (and, again, wouldn't even say they saw them hit), nor hit the side of the building, or indeed, no-one saw a light pole in the cab except for one witness, which suggests to me there is something fishy about the whole deal (that is, the official story is incorrect).



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
You heard wrong.

There is not even one witness account claiming they saw the light pole spear the cab, in the cab, OR being removed from the cab.


Wanda Ramey is the only account who claims that she saw the plane hit the pole but her account is unconfirmed.

She was either embellishing, lying, or was misreported.

We haven't been able to find Wanda to confirm her account.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Cool deal getting this vid up. I didn't think they let you post videos that long? Otherwise mine might be up by now.
Anyway, I will be back and fully engaged tomorrow night. No more time spent than necessary, but no less either.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


My bad - I thought you said there was only 1 witness who saw the light pole in the cab (but didn't see it get hit), aside from the cab driver and his mystery helper.

Zero witnesses (aside from Lloyd) who saw it in the cab? CIT 1 - 0 Official Story
I presume have haven't been able to trace any of the other drivers that would have been around Lloyd at the time? Do you have CCTV on your highways?

[edit on 18-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I presume have haven't been able to trace any of the other drivers that would have been around Lloyd at the time? Do you have CCTV on your highways?



We can't find anyone that saw Lloyd.

Not even Mike Walter will admit to it.

Although they aren't my highways (I live in California) we have checked with the VDOT about the cameras.

They monitor but don't record.




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Make sure to post the entire thing unedited as I did with your own commentary.

You can post videos of any size on video google.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Alright, so now it’s the 'vs' thread. The gloves are off.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Props to Adam for finally mustering the courage to accept my challenge to a recorded debate. He has declined to discuss the info over the phone in the past but the fact that he finally agreed does add a notch of credibility/legitimacy to his truth seeking efforts in my opinion.


Neat. Of course you’re quite pleased with the results – plays more to your strengths than mine – It wasn’t much different at heart from our online talks – me citing big picture logic and you shooting out more new info while sidestepping my questions about your old stuff with words like “ludicrous,” “irrelevant,” “controlled,” “unverified,” etc.


Of course his position on the evidence is still as ludicrous as ever and it was actually quite strange to hear him verbalize it.


I'M kind of strange. Fact is I’ve felt a bit creeped-out since that day because of just about that impression left from hearing you verbalize your bizarre but well-crafted rationalizations into my very cell phone. It’s just a weird feeling.


The most notable point in this regard is how he believes the most likely scenario is that all of the CITGO witnesses are part of the conspiracy and are planted operatives put out to spread disinformation that proves the official story false.


And that's just my opinion, however odd you'll call it. But let's just step back and remove all value of likelihood from each scenario and just look at each basic possibility behind your multi-corroborated and growing witness list contradicting all other observable facts/evidence.

1) They really did see the plane on the north side
1a) this was some kind of psyop second plane or hologram or whatever in addition to the real south-path impacting 757
1b) this was the one and only, non-impacting plane and flyover is proven

2) They were each mistaken somehow by coincidence – the plane came in south and for whatever reason, each witness you talks to who directly supports your path has, for each their own reason, remembered it to the north. Option 2) is most appealing to people first coming to awareness of this evidence, but on closer look has much against it. I consider it unlikely – they describe a fairly coherent flight path

3) The witnesses are wrong on the flight path and perhaps other clues by something other than accident – ie, a disinformation campaign – perhaps organized from above, or perhaps just something that organically happened (ie - one guy sees the next telling the CTers just what they want to hear and senses they should do the same, and the trend snowballs).

And when it comes to crazy conspiracies involving witnesses being organized by the military or whoever to promote lies about what happened – how about that USA Today parade? How about Lloyd, the first known accomplice?’ No problem believing it if its supports the ‘official story’ but with discrediting flaws, but the notion is now ridiculous if the witness conspiracy is to support your flyover hypothesis and with at least as serious of flaws.


The irony in this is that he has to accept this wild conspiracy theory (with no evidence) as a method to dismiss what he asserts is a wild conspiracy theory (that is supported with strong evidence).


First, your theory is supported almost exclusively by multiple eyewitnesses – that is, it’s supported by dis-acknowledging the possibility they are lying or otherwise wrong. All other ‘evidence” you use to support it falls apart under scrutiny. My CT is supported by nearly all evidence BESIDES your witnesses.

And here let me do the reverse of what I did above, for rhetorical purposes, by adding degrees of wildness to the competing CTs here. Option 1) involves, well, all the contrivances we’ve been talking about, from light poles to no other-side witnesses, from Lloyd to RADES, from the FDR to the column damage, from the foundation to the lying conspiring witnesses, from the generator to the altered video, from Lagasse’s ‘denial’ to the planted plane parts.

From all I know of the evidence, option 3) seems at least as likely as anything else, especially considering how much the officials involved have contributed in the past to secrecy, mystery, doubt, and confusion over the attack; a sustained flow of north-path disinformation is not necessarily the most likely explanation, but it simply does not seem ‘ludicrous’ to me by any measure.


What is also strange is that although this is his working hypothesis.....he seems to think that it is merely a "possibility" to "keep in mind".

So in essence, he states that ALL possibilities are unlikely!


True it's not a popular position at the moment, and I acknowledge that as your list of witnesses grows, my hypothesis looks more silly. And from what you say, NOT ONE you’ve talked to has supported the south side, even when specifically but non-leadingly asked (right?).

I’m actually pretty open-minded (as you know and try to manipulate) and I’ve always considered the PentaCon theory as possible What if they’re really right, I wonder, and all that evidence really was faked? This feeling usually gets stronger as you present new evidence I haven’t studied yet, and weaker after I’ve looked more closely. But anyway, let me just back off on what I believe – and again ask the readers to just consider the basic possibilities behind this.

1) PentaCon right – diversion to the north, destruction to the south.
2) Innocent error – just a few accidentally wrong witnesses
3) Malicious error – north path witnesses, in essence, lying in an organized way.

All three possibilities are pretty crazy-sounding. Something weird is going on here whichever is true.

Now regarding possibility 3, however unlikely, what I’d like to know, and as I’ve asked before, why have you have (so far as I’ve seen) never addressed this possibility at all until forced to? If you have ever publicly aired doubts about the main content of their accounts, or the possibility of systematic deception, now’s the time to link to it. Otherwise, embracing one ridiculous possibility as a ‘smoking gun’ while rejecting another without even bothering to explain why, to dismiss it as if it never existed, is a rather suspicious way to carry out an investigation.

Yes, suspicious. Absolutely.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL,

How come you said your Frustrating Fraud blog had "ended" and even launched a brand new LIHOP blog aptly titled "They Let It Happen" yet you have chosen to continue your Frustrating Fraud blog after all?



I think I've said or implied I meant to quit the scene a few times now but I just can't do it. Mood changes. I probably should quit, as some people who care about me recommend.

I launched both sites of last year on the back of work I mostly did in 2004. They've been linked together the whole time and I've posted stuff at ATS from TLIH. I also do the 12/7-9/11 Trreadmill, which delves some into the history of fals flag attacks/provocations/manufactured crises. This was to be my toolbox to appeal to 'inteligenst skeptics.' Somehow I got sidetracked and got more into the debunking side. Also I did Guerillas Without Guns and a few other things to show I'm not only about 9/11. This one too has faded into inaction.

BTW: Craig - I did not mention Walter as my only witness - I only mentioned him because you pointed out the trees and I agree his testimony, especially to you, in not quite kosher. My main witness was Terry Morin, whose account you still dismiss and mischaracterize.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



Mmmm, nah. I wasn't too happy with your seeming to call ME the Frustrating Fraud, but that's actually fine if you think it's clever. But otherwise your posting is fine, I've got it embedded, and I don't feel up to creating a whole new account just for that. I do reserve the right to post segments for ilustrative purposes unless you have a serious objection, tho I might not have the time to do that anyway.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright, so now it’s the 'vs' thread. The gloves are off.


Be careful not to hurt yourself!





Neat. Of course you’re quite pleased with the results – plays more to your strengths than mine – It wasn’t much different at heart from our online talks – me citing big picture logic and you shooting out more new info while sidestepping my questions about your old stuff with words like “ludicrous,” “irrelevant,” “controlled,” “unverified,” etc.


Please refrain from vague generalizations and specifically state what was "sidestepped" so I can address it directly.

I think this dig was a bluff on your part and that you really don't even have a single example of this.






I'M kind of strange. Fact is I’ve felt a bit creeped-out since that day because of just about that impression left from hearing you verbalize your bizarre but well-crafted rationalizations into my very cell phone. It’s just a weird feeling.


Spare us the hyperbole.

There is nothing "bizarre" about our evidence based claims.

Your feeling of unease was strictly the result of your perpetual stammering and lack of cognitive ability to refute my claims.





And that's just my opinion, however odd you'll call it. But let's just step back and remove all value of likelihood from each scenario and just look at each basic possibility behind your multi-corroborated and growing witness list contradicting all other observable facts/evidence.


This is a false claim that you were not able to defend in our discussion when I called you out on it. So you are already setting up this continued discussion based on a claim that I have already demonstrated to be a fallacy. The physical damage IS anomalous and even you have conceded this in regards to the foundation. The FDR most certainly IS anomalous with the physical damge as has been demonstrated in this presentation that you have STILL refused to address in your blog:

Google Video Link


Plus even YOU admitted that the notion that the plane came low and level, hit the light poles and then leveled off before hitting the building without touching the ground is "quite a feat".

So don't try to flip it and all of the sudden act like your 757 impact CT is somehow plausible compared to our hypothesis that has been proven based on the evidence.




And when it comes to crazy conspiracies involving witnesses being organized by the military or whoever to promote lies about what happened – how about that USA Today parade? How about Lloyd, the first known accomplice?’ No problem believing it if its supports the ‘official story’ but with discrediting flaws, but the notion is now ridiculous if the witness conspiracy is to support your flyover hypothesis and with at least as serious of flaws.


There is huge motive for the perpetrators to use operatives to support their story. There is zero motive for them to spread information proving their story false years after the operation has been completely successful and they are achieving all their goals.

Besides....we KNOW it was a "crazy conspiracy".

YOU are the LIHOPer who suggests it was a normal conspiracy.

You contradict your own logic if you suggest that they would go so far as to employ deep cover operatives as mechanics and gas station attendants to spread disinformation after they have achieved all their goals from merely allowing the attack to take place exactly as reported.

I know that you know this because EVEN YOU said that it "sounds pretty silly" when forced to verbalize your wacky claim.







First, your theory is supported almost exclusively by multiple eyewitnesses – that is, it’s supported by dis-acknowledging the possibility they are lying or otherwise wrong. All other ‘evidence” you use to support it falls apart under scrutiny. My CT is supported by nearly all evidence BESIDES your witnesses.


Whoaaaaa there big fella. Don't think you can spout off generalized blanket statements without backing them up now that you can hide behind a computer. WHAT evidence falls apart under scrutiny? If you can't be specific you are failing to make a point.

Your "CT" is not supported by "nearly all evidence".

If you make blanket statements I get to refute them with a blanket statement and nothing gets discussed.

We will then by default have to refer to our recorded debate for specifics or else schedule another one to address them further.

How about round two with Aldo?




And here let me do the reverse of what I did above, for rhetorical purposes, by adding degrees of wildness to the competing CTs here. Option 1) involves, well, all the contrivances we’ve been talking about, from light poles to no other-side witnesses, from Lloyd to RADES, from the FDR to the column damage, from the foundation to the lying conspiring witnesses, from the generator to the altered video, from Lagasse’s ‘denial’ to the planted plane parts.

From all I know of the evidence, option 3) seems at least as likely as anything else, especially considering how much the officials involved have contributed in the past to secrecy, mystery, doubt, and confusion over the attack; a sustained flow of north-path disinformation is not necessarily the most likely explanation, but it simply does not seem ‘ludicrous’ to me by any measure.


Argument from incredulity.

Logical fallacies are not sufficient to refute evidence.

This is your ONLY argument which is in utter defiance to critical thinking principles AND contradicts your entire LIHOP mentality.

Sorry bro but if you can't provide countering evidence you have failed to refute what we present.

Really the ONLY way to counter the north side evidence is to provide 6 or more confirmed first hand accounts that directly place the plane on the south side of the station.

You have not provided one.






True it's not a popular position at the moment, and I acknowledge that as your list of witnesses grows, my hypothesis looks more silly. And from what you say, NOT ONE you’ve talked to has supported the south side, even when specifically but non-leadingly asked (right?).


Correct.



I’m actually pretty open-minded (as you know and try to manipulate) and I’ve always considered the PentaCon theory as possible What if they’re really right, I wonder, and all that evidence really was faked? This feeling usually gets stronger as you present new evidence I haven’t studied yet, and weaker after I’ve looked more closely. But anyway, let me just back off on what I believe – and again ask the readers to just consider the basic possibilities behind this.

1) PentaCon right – diversion to the north, destruction to the south.
2) Innocent error – just a few accidentally wrong witnesses
3) Malicious error – north path witnesses, in essence, lying in an organized way.

All three possibilities are pretty crazy-sounding. Something weird is going on here whichever is true.


The notion that Hani Hanjour piloted the 757 perfectly into newly renovated wedge one in the heart of our military headquarters while the entire country was well aware we were under deliberate attack is just as "crazy sounding" so the point is moot.



Now regarding possibility 3, however unlikely, what I’d like to know, and as I’ve asked before, why have you have (so far as I’ve seen) never addressed this possibility at all until forced to? If you have ever publicly aired doubts about the main content of their accounts, or the possibility of systematic deception, now’s the time to link to it. Otherwise, embracing one ridiculous possibility as a ‘smoking gun’ while rejecting another without even bothering to explain why, to dismiss it as if it never existed, is a rather suspicious way to carry out an investigation.

Yes, suspicious. Absolutely.


You are clearly getting desperate.

The notion is so completely absurd that my answer is an emphatic NO.

Nobody who went through what I went through would consider such a ridiculous assertion.

Wild conspiracy theories require very strong evidence and you have NONE to back this one up.

Edward Paik and Robert Turcios were previously unknown witnesses who are regular immigrant citizens who we found INDEPENDENTLY from canvassing.

Russell Pickering was present as was Dylan Avery so you don't even have to rely on CIT's word for this.

The notion that these two blue collar workers are deep cover operatives who were NOT part of the post event propaganda but were laying in wait for 5 years and that we happened to randomly find both of them is beyond absurd.

If our entire case rested on Brooks and Lagasse your assertion would be a BIT more plausible (however not much since there would still be no legitimate motive) but we sought them out simply as corroboration because we knew they were at the CITGO.

Plus we are getting further corroboration because this is where the plane flew. You can't move the plane.

As it stands your notion that the conspiracy to prove the the official story incorrect when it has been 100% successful runs so insanely deep that it is not a feasible assertion worth entertaining.

Particularly since there is no motive for the perps to go so far to prove their story wrong.

This is merely a desperate and completely contradictory assertion on your part as a last ditch effort to justify your continued dogmatic 757 impact belief in light of the growing pile of evidence proving it incorrect.

No matter how hard you try to cast doubt on us or our witnesses with this lunacy it will not stick.

It's actually quite hilarious because the strongest point for the 757 impact CT is that it would allegedly be EASIER for the perps and would not require any planted testimony or operatives and therefore involve less people.

But for YOUR theory to be true that logic goes out the window and the KISS or keep it simple stupid philosophy works more in OUR favor.

All of the sudden I get to bust out with occams razor and you become the paranoid conspiracy theorist spouting off unsupported fantasy.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

BTW: Craig - I did not mention Walter as my only witness - I only mentioned him because you pointed out the trees and I agree his testimony, especially to you, in not quite kosher. My main witness was Terry Morin, whose account you still dismiss and mischaracterize.



Dismiss? Mischaracterize?

Hardly. We have called his house more than once to get confirmation and his wife grilled us asking if we were working for Michael Moore. She promised to relay the message but needless to say Terry would never call us back.

Let's take a close look at what Terry Morin said:

First for referrence this is pretty much his exact POV except he was even a bit further back:


You can only see the roof of the Pentagon and can't see the CITGO, trees, light poles, highway, or ground in front of the Pentagon at all.



As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

........As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).

.....As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view.


........Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

www.coping.org...


There are MAJOR problems with this extremely detailed account in relation to the official story.

1. His account is extremely drawn out for a plane that was allegedly traveling over 500 mph. It's unlikely that he would have heard the plane before seeing it at all due to the Doppler effect.

2. He claims he was between the 4th and 5th wing and that the jet was "parallel" to the FOB and directly over him but even this contradicts the physical damage path which requires the entire plane to be over the VDOT, completely on the south side side of Columbia Pike until AFTER the last wing of the Navy Annex when Columbia Pike curves around and starts to change direction:


However Edward Paik's account has the jet directly over him between the 4th and 5th wing of the FOB:


So it can not be both parallel to the FOB as well as directly over him.

Since Edward Paik's account corroborates his "directly over" him claim then it is reasonable to suggest that this is the more correct assertion of the two.

3. If the plane was 30 to 50 feet over the Navy Annex it would require a rather fast and steep descent angle (as opposed to a "slight nose down attitude) to hit the light poles which were about a second away at that point (if that) PARTICULARLY due to the sudden decline in the topography. Edward Paik claims that it almost hit the roof and even thought it hit the last wing of the Navy Annex at first.

4. How could he see stripes on the fuselage of a plane that was directly above him? Edward Paik described it as having "black wings" which makes perfect sense with what you would expect to see if a plane was only 10's of feet directly over you.

5. There is no way there would be a "flash" in broad daylight from the plane hitting a pole and even if there was it would be impossible to see from the Navy Annex parking lot where he can not see the trees, the citgo, the light poles, the highway, OR anything more than the very top floor of the Pentagon.

6. He admits to the trees (that he wouldn't even be able to see) but expounds on seeing the "tail" after that even though this would be impossible to see for him at all if the plane was low and level to the ground as required by the physical damage. Of course it is possible that he would be able to see the tail after the plane pulled up over the highway and continued on over the building.


7. The notion that he saw the plane for 12 to 15 seconds is completely ridiculous and you know this.


Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.

If THIS is your "main" witness in support of the official flight path it's clear you have serious issues.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

3. If the plane was 30 to 50 feet over the Navy Annex it would require a rather fast and steep descent angle (as opposed to a "slight nose down attitude) to hit the light poles which were about a second away at that point (if that)

If the FDR is even close to the actual airspeed, 350 kts = ~590 ft/sec.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Alright, so now it’s the 'vs' thread. The gloves are off.


Be careful not to hurt yourself!


That was good. I love that movie.



Please refrain from vague generalizations and specifically state what was "sidestepped" so I can address it directly.

I think this dig was a bluff on your part and that you really don't even have a single example of this.


I'm not going to waste my time digging up specifics. Citgo video shadow - irrelevant, probably faked, whatever. Terry Morin - totally consistent w/Paik and a flyover path. The possibility your witnesses lied - so far unaddressed in any meaningful way. Just dismissed out of hand, as it was from day one.



This is a false claim that you were not able to defend in our discussion when I called you out on it. So you are already setting up this continued discussion based on a claim that I have already demonstrated to be a fallacy. The physical damage IS anomalous and even you have conceded this in regards to the foundation. The FDR most certainly IS anomalous with the physical damge as has been demonstrated in this presentation that you have STILL refused to address in your blog


I've backed off FDR studies, but again, those numbers seem to be based on what the plane was doing way up the hill. So what if that doesn't match impact damage. What it shows is missing seconds, whichis anomalous. But being missing evidence it can't directly indicate anything about what might be being covered up.

Re: foundation - I've argue it IS severely damaged in one small spot, but perhaps it wasn't, and that otherwise there should be ne makor damage near impact, or much of anywhere in any one spot, and that your unmamaged foundation w/no scrath is covered is scraped-down mud. Columns blown up and out? No evidence. No continuity to right wing damage? Floor slab. No tailfin hole? Why would there be one? Etc... The evidence is about exactly as anomolous as a 757 crash into the Pentagon would be.

What is this 'you've admitted' crap you keep saying?

Then we've got the witnesses - all yhink it hit, none were nonfused by the pull-up compared to ground level damage, none report it on the other side. FDR is faked. Radar data faked. We'll be seeing more photos of plane parts - al planted. All internal damage. Fire spread/facade burn engineered how and from where?





Plus even YOU admitted that the notion that the plane came low and level, hit the light poles and then leveled off before hitting the building without touching the ground is "quite a feat".


Yep. A feat that was possible and that I believe happened.


So don't try to flip it and all of the sudden act like your 757 impact CT is somehow plausible compared to our hypothesis that has been proven based on the evidence.


Ahem. Please, again, how is it proven? Because you ain't yet been able to illustrate it, just remind us it's already proven. So remind us again. Possibilities - all you've proven is that these guys opened their yaps and said some things.



There is huge motive for the perpetrators to use operatives to support their story. There is zero motive for them to spread information proving their story false years after the operation has been completely successful and they are achieving all their goals.


THIS is what I meant by side-stepping. Craig cannot prove his witnesses are telling the truth. He merely offers his opinion that there would be no motive for this. Period. Not even worth considering.


Besides....we KNOW it was a "crazy conspiracy".

YOU are the LIHOPer who suggests it was a normal conspiracy.


Okay, so now you have admitted that you are promoting a "crazy" conspiracy theory.


You contradict your own logic if you suggest that they would go so far as to employ deep cover operatives as mechanics and gas station attendants to spread disinformation after they have achieved all their goals from merely allowing the attack to take place exactly as reported.

I know that you know this because EVEN YOU said that it "sounds pretty silly" when forced to verbalize your wacky claim.


Craig, you do not know how my logic runs. All their goals were NOT acjieved. They have encouraged mystery at every turn - from sliping and saying 'missile' to failing to release videos. But ultimately the evidence was lining up too well, and then out come thse witnesses.

There is no explanation for your witnesses that doesn't sound silly. We just have to recognize the slate and pick the one that makes most sense.









First, your theory is supported almost exclusively by multiple eyewitnesses – that is, it’s supported by dis-acknowledging the possibility they are lying or otherwise wrong. All other ‘evidence” you use to support it falls apart under scrutiny. My CT is supported by nearly all evidence BESIDES your witnesses.


Whoaaaaa there big fella. Don't think you can spout off generalized blanket statements without backing them up now that you can hide behind a computer. WHAT evidence falls apart under scrutiny? If you can't be specific you are failing to make a point.

Your "CT" is not supported by "nearly all evidence".

If you make blanket statements I get to refute them with a blanket statement and nothing gets discussed.


Again, not that you've ever acknowledged it, but I've flayed your 'anomolus physical evidence' that had you believing in flyover before you ever talked to your witnesses. I don't have time for a full list now, but you know where the posts are.

And are you denying that the FDR shows a south path (up to a point)? Or that the radar shows it better? Or that the general body of building damage lines up with a south-path impact? Your argument has been that much other evidence anyway (light poles, etc) matches the 'official story' and is therefore proven faked. Now you deny the 'official path' is supported by any preponderance of evidence? They only faked it - what - 50% correct? How bad did they goof it Craig?


We will then by default have to refer to our recorded debate for specifics or else schedule another one to address them further.

How about round two with Aldo?


Yeah, after Thanksgiving ifhe you feel it's worth his time to engage me.






And here let me do the reverse of what I did above, for rhetorical purposes, by adding degrees of wildness to the competing CTs here. Option 1) involves, well, all the contrivances we’ve been talking about, from light poles to no other-side witnesses, from Lloyd to RADES, from the FDR to the column damage, from the foundation to the lying conspiring witnesses, from the generator to the altered video, from Lagasse’s ‘denial’ to the planted plane parts.

From all I know of the evidence, option 3) seems at least as likely as anything else, especially considering how much the officials involved have contributed in the past to secrecy, mystery, doubt, and confusion over the attack; a sustained flow of north-path disinformation is not necessarily the most likely explanation, but it simply does not seem ‘ludicrous’ to me by any measure.


Argument from incredulity.

Logical fallacies are not sufficient to refute evidence.


Okay wait - incredulity has no place now? So why is it you fail to lend any credibility to option 3? Because of your careful analysis of Pentagon motives? Let me tell you then, they had no motive whatsoever to fake the light poles, building damage, plane parts, video, witnesses, radar track, etc...


This is your ONLY argument which is in utter defiance to critical thinking principles AND contradicts your entire LIHOP mentality.

Sorry bro but if you can't provide countering evidence you have failed to refute what we present.


sorry bro, but you know darn well I have. You only haven'tacknowledged it because you cannot alter course.


Really the ONLY way to counter the north side evidence is to provide 6 or more confirmed first hand accounts that directly place the plane on the south side of the station.

You have not provided one.


Please demonstrate why this is is the ONLY way. Because I disagree with these terms. This is not a numbers game. When you throw out something as elaborately stupid as you flyover-n-bombs scenario, you need to find more solid evidence than words spewed from the murky minds of men. This is not reliable evidence, especially considering there is no reason besides YOUR OPINION to doubt there might be organized misinformation being promoted.

Thank you, that is all for now.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
yep, no need to repeat myself

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
(Double-post by CL I think).

If they'd just release the darn video tapes none of this would be going on!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Sure it would.

Since they have been sequestered and controlled by the suspect for over 6 years now that data is 100% invalid to support the suspect's story even if they WERE released.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I'm not going to waste my time digging up specifics. Citgo video shadow - irrelevant, probably faked, whatever. Terry Morin - totally consistent w/Paik and a flyover path. The possibility your witnesses lied - so far unaddressed in any meaningful way. Just dismissed out of hand, as it was from day one.


Haha! Just as I thought.....NOTHING!

Morin is debunked.

Not surprising that you haven't even bothered to critically analyze your "main" witness.







I've backed off FDR studies, but again, those numbers seem to be based on what the plane was doing way up the hill. So what if that doesn't match impact damage. What it shows is missing seconds, whichis anomalous. But being missing evidence it can't directly indicate anything about what might be being covered up.


Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about and are not able to debunk PFT's animation showing you the facts.



Re: foundation - I've argue it IS severely damaged in one small spot, but perhaps it wasn't, and that otherwise there should be ne makor damage near impact, or much of anywhere in any one spot, and that your unmamaged foundation w/no scrath is covered is scraped-down mud. Columns blown up and out? No evidence. No continuity to right wing damage? Floor slab. No tailfin hole? Why would there be one? Etc... The evidence is about exactly as anomolous as a 757 crash into the Pentagon would be.

What is this 'you've admitted' crap you keep saying?



You consistently concede during debate and then later ignore your concessions.

There are SERIOUS ISSUES with the physical damage and I have demonstrated this many times over.

You are starting to ramble.



Then we've got the witnesses - all yhink it hit, none were nonfused by the pull-up compared to ground level damage, none report it on the other side. FDR is faked. Radar data faked. We'll be seeing more photos of plane parts - al planted. All internal damage. Fire spread/facade burn engineered how and from where?


Sounds like more rambling to me. Certainly nothing that supports a 757 impact or refutes the north side evidence.




Yep. A feat that was possible and that I believe happened.


Despite the evidence proving otherwise that you can not refute.



Ahem. Please, again, how is it proven? Because you ain't yet been able to illustrate it, just remind us it's already proven. So remind us again. Possibilities - all you've proven is that these guys opened their yaps and said some things.


Independent corroboration is proof.

People don't open their "yaps" and independently describe the same thing if it isn't true.

You are in serious denial and now that you had your rear end handed to you on a platter on recording you are coming unglued.






THIS is what I meant by side-stepping. Craig cannot prove his witnesses are telling the truth. He merely offers his opinion that there would be no motive for this. Period. Not even worth considering.


That is not an opinion it is FACT.

There is no motive. The operation was successful and we are in the midst of permanent global war. There is no threat of "LIHOP" being uncovered or need to "divert" attention from it.

It is up to YOU to provide evidence they are government agents or in the very least provide a sufficient motive for the government to risk going so ridiculously far to prove their own story incorrect needlessly otherwise your insane conjecture in this regard is merely that.

If you really believe that they ARE involved then you should be calling to have them brought in for questioning like we are Lloyd.

Have Robert, Edward, and the cops brought in for questioning.

Otherwise you are merely spouting your mouth based on NOTHING to cast doubt on them and protect your silly 757 impact conspiracy theory.




Okay, so now you have admitted that you are promoting a "crazy" conspiracy theory.


Ummmmm.....the official story is a "crazy conspiracy theory". Everything about 9/11 is "crazy".

But we don't "promote" theories.

We provide evidence proving a deception and suggest a theory.





Craig, you do not know how my logic runs. All their goals were NOT acjieved. They have encouraged mystery at every turn - from sliping and saying 'missile' to failing to release videos. But ultimately the evidence was lining up too well, and then out come thse witnesses.


You're welcome.

These witnesses lift the veil of deception.

Yes everything HAS gone their way. The public bought it hook line and sinker and they got their war on Iraq and permanent global war.

The media never questions any of the Osama videos and the movement is ignored, ridiculed, marginalized, and demonized DESPITE all the evidence proving a deception.

What more could they want?




There is no explanation for your witnesses that doesn't sound silly. We just have to recognize the slate and pick the one that makes most sense.


Uh huh. That they prove a deception.

That is clearly the most logical choice that isn't the least bit "silly".





Again, not that you've ever acknowledged it, but I've flayed your 'anomolus physical evidence' that had you believing in flyover before you ever talked to your witnesses. I don't have time for a full list now, but you know where the posts are.


I have no idea what you are talking about. You concede in virtually ever discussion we have had.



And are you denying that the FDR shows a south path (up to a point)? Or that the radar shows it better? Or that the general body of building damage lines up with a south-path impact? Your argument has been that much other evidence anyway (light poles, etc) matches the 'official story' and is therefore proven faked. Now you deny the 'official path' is supported by any preponderance of evidence? They only faked it - what - 50% correct? How bad did they goof it Craig?


The plane could not have caused the damage. It is anomalous and shows signs of being fabricated all over the place starting right off the bat with Lloyd's cab and the plasma torched uniformly removed bases.

Even IF there wasn't any signs of fakery it wouldn't matter because the plane was in the wrong place. But there ARE signs of it all over the place.




Yeah, after Thanksgiving ifhe you feel it's worth his time to engage me.


Awesome! How about Wednesday next week?




Okay wait - incredulity has no place now? So why is it you fail to lend any credibility to option 3? Because of your careful analysis of Pentagon motives? Let me tell you then, they had no motive whatsoever to fake the light poles, building damage, plane parts, video, witnesses, radar track, etc...


If 9/11 was an inside job they have plenty of motive to support their story.

Since 9/11 was a successful inside job they have ZERO motive to stage conclusive information that proves their story false 5 years after the fact.

How can you not see this?





sorry bro, but you know darn well I have. You only haven'tacknowledged it because you cannot alter course.


No you have not. You have provided NOTHING to refute the north side claim. Nothing whatsoever.




Please demonstrate why this is is the ONLY way. Because I disagree with these terms. This is not a numbers game. When you throw out something as elaborately stupid as you flyover-n-bombs scenario, you need to find more solid evidence than words spewed from the murky minds of men. This is not reliable evidence, especially considering there is no reason besides YOUR OPINION to doubt there might be organized misinformation being promoted.

Thank you, that is all for now.




My my! What happened to maintaining "vigilance and calm"?

Sounds like you're losing control there buddy!

The plane is gone.

There is no video tape.

The FDR is irreconcilable with the physical damage.

The ONLY evidence as to where the plane really flew would be eyewitness testimony.

You can ONLY refute what we have provided with countering testimony.

It doesn't exist because the plane was on the north side of the citgo station so that is where everyone saw it.

I look forward to your response to my post about your "main" witness Terry Morin.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
This image alone is enough to completely debunk Terry Morin:




Morin's account here

Look at the picture and think about how fast that plane would have to decline in about 1 or 2 seconds from 50 feet over the Navy Annex to hit the light poles at the very bottom of the hill.

Edward describes seeing the jet for a couple of seconds and hearing the explosion a few seconds later which makes perfect sense.

Morin claims he heard it FIRST so you know he couldn't have seen it for much more than a second before it started declining in what would HAVE to be more than a "slight nose down attitude" to hit the poles.

Just analyzing Morin's ridiculous account and thinking about this while looking at that image is enough to prove the official story a farce.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join