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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


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.


Thank you for explaining that again. "People don't open their "yaps" and independently describe the same thing if it isn't true." Ever. That's a pretty strong statement. Is there any way you can demonstrate how people have never lied in an organized way to mimic multiple-corroborated reality?

Problem is you are caught in this. You never thought about this option, and that's a problem for your proof. It's also suspicious in that it indicates you had a clear philosophy about what you weren't going to consider.

Now I'm not saying the north-of-Citgo witnesses - a handful or an armload - truly ARE complicit in a disinfo campaign, but can anyone besides Craig stand up and tell me this is impossible, or near enough that it should ever have been considered?


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.

If it's fact and not opinion, why is it coming only from you? Having a hard time reasoning your case? Just argue that you've already won, your case is proven, your opinins are facts, all else are lies that you need not waste a minute on. How handy.




posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This image alone is enough to completely debunk Terry Morin:




OMG! This one photo is so damning it's amazing. It shows the Annex is higher up than the Pentagon. And judging by this shot, they're about fifty feet apart. It's like diving down a cliff and then leveling out! Okay, I'll get back to that. First let's see how you tweaked things here:


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.


Alright here's what's wrong with your analysis.

1) Morin is not 'my main witness.' He's the one that sprung to mind talking to you.

2) The dive down that mighty slope, all shown to scale (except Morin):

-6 average lines up with what I'd found from other sources - including the irrelevant shadow. The curve is necessary for the damage path, and is only slightly sharper than other trends recorded in the FDR stuff.

3) The number of seconds from there to impact - quick math, 777.333 fps, about 2550 feet including descent = 3.3 seconds to impact from the east edge of the annex. He would have probably first seen it 4-5 seconds before impact.

4) "slight nose down attitude." As an eyewitness expert, do you still not recognize the limitations on reading anything into subjective words like 'slight?' Is the slope above not what some might reasonably describes as 'slight?'

5) And regarding Morin's account of flight path compared too Paik's:
"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)."
Paik's path, your composit, official path, Morin's literal account. I'll leave it open exactly what might be going on here.



I've weebled. Time for you to wobble.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Thank you for explaining that again. "People don't open their "yaps" and independently describe the same thing if it isn't true." Ever. That's a pretty strong statement. Is there any way you can demonstrate how people have never lied in an organized way to mimic multiple-corroborated reality?

Problem is you are caught in this. You never thought about this option, and that's a problem for your proof. It's also suspicious in that it indicates you had a clear philosophy about what you weren't going to consider.


I am not "caught" and this is not a problem. You are suggesting an outrageous, illogical, unneeded, and completely UNSUPPORTED wild speculative scenario based on zero evidence.

The notion that it's "possible" is irrelevant.

It's also possible that holograms were used or that all the citgo-witnesses are shape shifting aliens but there is ZERO reason to make absurd suggestions without evidence OR motive!

It is not a "problem" if I don't think of every ridiculous possibility in the universe. I am not "caught" if I choose to dismiss wild speculation over evidence and logic. This is how true critical thinking and scientific reasoning works.

You have asserted your unsupported speculation, it has been considered, and it has now been dismissed based on tangible evidence independently obtained via our investigation and standard logic relative to the context of the crime.



Now I'm not saying the north-of-Citgo witnesses - a handful or an armload - truly ARE complicit in a disinfo campaign, but can anyone besides Craig stand up and tell me this is impossible, or near enough that it should ever have been considered?


Nobody is standing up to say that it IS a legitimate or even remotely likely consideration. NOBODY supports your unsupported conspiracy theory because it is merely that. YOU have been reduced to abandoning empirical evidence in favor of speculation.

It's painful to watch you squirm and hang on so tightly to such a tiny thread.

Your wild speculation has been considered as per your request just like the notion that they are shape-shifting aliens has been considered now that it came up in the discussion.

I'll wait until you provide evidence before taking this ridiculous notion seriously.






That is not an opinion it is FACT.

There is no motive.


If it's fact and not opinion, why is it coming only from you? Having a hard time reasoning your case? Just argue that you've already won, your case is proven, your opinins are facts, all else are lies that you need not waste a minute on. How handy.


Only coming from me? Your crazy cointel-citgo-planted-operatives theory is only coming from YOU.

Nobody is supporting you on this for a reason.

It most certainly is FACT that there is no motive or evidence for your theory and the fact that you keep refusing to cite anything proves it.

YOU have to provide evidence and a sufficient MOTIVE to support your absurd theory.

There is no motive because the operation has been 100% successful so they have not a reason on earth to go to such incredibly great lengths and risk to prove the scenario they worked so hard to stage incorrect!

There is no threat of your LIHOP scenario being uncovered.

It's many years after the event and the movement is ignored by the mainstream while we are thoroughly engaged in permanent global war.

These most certainly ARE facts.




[edit on 21-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Alright here's what's wrong with your analysis.

1) Morin is not 'my main witness.' He's the one that sprung to mind talking to you.


I put quotes on "main witness" because it is what you SAID. If you are taking back your statement be clear that this is what you are doing.



2) The dive down that mighty slope, all shown to scale (except Morin):

-6 average lines up with what I'd found from other sources - including the irrelevant shadow. The curve is necessary for the damage path, and is only slightly sharper than other trends recorded in the FDR stuff.


While you ADMIT that you have to ADD values not depicted in the FDR to have your unsupported scenario work which instantly debunks your claim....you are also forgetting the reported speed of the jet. Your image makes it seem like a simple decline but for a massive jumbo jet at 535 mph this is simply not the case. There is NOT ENOUGH TIME for the plane to descend quickly and smoothly enough to hit the poles at 535 mph AND level out without smashing into the ground.




3) The number of seconds from there to impact - quick math, 777.333 fps, about 2550 feet including descent = 3.3 seconds to impact from the east edge of the annex. He would have probably first seen it 4-5 seconds before impact.


4 to 5 seconds is FAR from 12 to 15 seconds that he claims and you are IGNORING his POV! He would completely lose sight of the jet after it's descent BEFORE it even reached the CITGO!

So do the math again......that leaves about 1 second that he would see the jet if that.

Edward's account is consistent with this while Morin's is clearly in stark contrast.

Morin's account is completely inconsistent with the official story (and your claims) so to simply lift his "parallel" claim (even though it still CONTRADICTS the physical damage) while ignoring the rest is not a scientific approach to analyzing his account.



4) "slight nose down attitude." As an eyewitness expert, do you still not recognize the limitations on reading anything into subjective words like 'slight?' Is the slope above not what some might reasonably describes as 'slight?'


It is clearly a talking point. He would not be able to see it like that in 1 second from a jet directly over him. Plus the plane disappearing in a descent that quick before the citgo would have to seem more drastic to him from his POV. ESPECIALLY at 535 mph.



5) And regarding Morin's account of flight path compared too Paik's:
"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)."
Paik's path, your composit, official path, Morin's literal account. I'll leave it open exactly what might be going on here.


Continue Morin's flight path Adam.

It does not line up with the light poles or ANY of the physical damage!

If you are asserting he is correct in this claim you are proving the official story false.

He can NOT be correct about this directly above/parallel business unless the jet significantly banked at 535 mph.

Is this what you are maintaining?

Because if it is you have MORE issues with the FDR.

These are FATAL contradictions but you have no problem citing them anyway.

This is because you are clearly more interested in confusion and neutralization then actually making sense.






I've weebled. Time for you to wobble.


Homey don't play dat.

While you were playing with weeble wobbles I was playing with GI Joes.

You numbered your points as if you were responding to my post direct but you were not responding to my post direct.

You ignored many of my points showing you why Morin's account is not credible. Let's try this again, here are the points you ignored:

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.

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.

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.

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

Morin would only be able to see the jet for about one second, two at the most.

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.

Conversely; Edward Paik's account makes perfect sense with what we would expect from an honest eyewitness.







[edit on 21-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I am not "caught" and this is not a problem. You are suggesting an outrageous, illogical, unneeded, and completely UNSUPPORTED wild speculative scenario based on zero evidence.

The notion that it's "possible" is irrelevant.

It's also possible that holograms were used or that all the citgo-witnesses are shape shifting aliens but there is ZERO reason to make absurd suggestions without evidence OR motive!


Evidemce: circumstantial. They all describe a flight path that counters all evidence, which evidence must be faked. And it's a lotta damn evidence. Including all the reports of impact from even your witnesses - faked with the flyover pyrotechnics. I do not have the phone calls where Rummy told Lagasse what to say and Lagasse told Brooks, etc. I could not have solid evidence, only circumstantial. It's enough for me to wonder, and put this in the range of probabilities much nearer us than shape-shifters.

Motive: Here we are. Arguing. It's either fake evidence or fake witnesses to blam but this aspect of the Truth Movement's investigation has been sabotaged.


It is not a "problem" if I don't think of every ridiculous possibility in the universe. I am not "caught" if I choose to dismiss wild speculation over evidence and logic. This is how true critical thinking and scientific reasoning works.

You have asserted your unsupported speculation, it has been considered, and it has now been dismissed based on tangible evidence independently obtained via our investigation and standard logic relative to the context of the crime.


And you, sir, are clearly a willful participant in the sabotage. You have dismissed coordinated lying as a possibility becuase you wanted the testimony to work. There is zero physical evidence for a flyover, yet you decided one happened, and when some people said things that help support this unsupported case you take it 100% with no reservations and ran with it.

Words, dude. Words. This is your proof. Simple words from the murky minds of men. And now all else is proven a fabrication, including the holy words of others who dare to describe something you don't want to hear.



Now I'm not saying the north-of-Citgo witnesses - a handful or an armload - truly ARE complicit in a disinfo campaign, but can anyone besides Craig stand up and tell me this is impossible, or near enough that it should ever have been considered?


Nobody is standing up to say that it IS a legitimate or even remotely likely consideration. NOBODY supports your unsupported conspiracy theory because it is merely that. YOU have been reduced to abandoning empirical evidence in favor of speculation.

It's painful to watch you squirm and hang on so tightly to such a tiny thread.

Oh it's not the only thread I got, just the one I'm trying to strangle you with right now. I',m still waiting for a convincing reason why coordinated misinformation is so incredibly unlikely. You're a logical guy, you shoud be able to explain it better than that. If they did their plane crash right, there are there are other reasons for them to promote a false theory later. FOR EXAMPLE to sow division in the movement. To practice the technique for future use. For twisted amusement. It's also possible that mistruth has crept in by some organic snowball effect. Lagasse says north for whatever reason, spends some tiime online... others read the posts, see your video, and decide to play along when you come-a-calling. Etc.

This is what I mean by 'murky minds.' It's a problem with withnesses, especially in high profile cases. And you refuse to acknolwedge this, readin these guys like you would a seismograph. Can such bad methodology really be an accident?


Your wild speculation has been considered as per your request just like the notion that they are shape-shifting aliens has been considered now that it came up in the discussion.


That's about the level of treatment I expected, Craig, if not a bit higher. I'm honored.


I'll wait until you provide evidence before taking this ridiculous notion seriously.


You, and the PentaCon phenomenon, and this thread, may be the evidence.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Evidemce: circumstantial. They all describe a flight path that counters all evidence, which evidence must be faked. And it's a lotta damn evidence. Including all the reports of impact from even your witnesses - faked with the flyover pyrotechnics. I do not have the phone calls where Rummy told Lagasse what to say and Lagasse told Brooks, etc. I could not have solid evidence, only circumstantial. It's enough for me to wonder, and put this in the range of probabilities much nearer us than shape-shifters.


Even your circumstantial evidence is based on circular logic which is not scientific reasoning. It is a cop-out.

There is a MOUNTAIN of "circumstantial" evidence proving 9/11 a fabrication all the way across the board. You are acting like the north side claim is all the truth movement has.

The physical evidence is anomalous on MANY levels and Lloyd's cab alone is enough to prove a deception even WITHOUT the north of the citgo testimony.

So we DO have strong physical evidence supporting our claim while you have none.



Motive: Here we are. Arguing. It's either fake evidence or fake witnesses to blam but this aspect of the Truth Movement's investigation has been sabotaged.


The fact that you are unable to follow scientific reasoning to defend your 757 impact conspiracy theory is not support for the notion that all 6 of the north side witnesses are operatives and that Lloyd's physically impossible story is true.




And you, sir, are clearly a willful participant in the sabotage. You have dismissed coordinated lying as a possibility becuase you wanted the testimony to work. There is zero physical evidence for a flyover, yet you decided one happened, and when some people said things that help support this unsupported case you take it 100% with no reservations and ran with it.


Lloyd's cab is physical evidence supporting the claim that the plane did not hit the poles. The anomalous damage to the poles and the building is physical evidence that the plane did not cause the physical damage.

You are lying about the scientific process we have implemented in obtaining this evidence. We postulated the theory based off the evidence, not the other way around.

Independent corroboration is a scientific process.

We have sought out corroboration and/or refutation of the north side claim wherever possible and it only gets supported. Are you remembering to include Sean Boger and Levi Stephens in your unsupported, illogical conspiracy theory?

How is it that EVERY SINGLE witness who was in a position to tell what side of the station the plane flew happens to be in on your conspiracy?

Why can't you provide a single witness account that directly supports the south of the citgo claim?

If 6 aren't enough for you how many north side witnesses would it take before you decide that your disinfo conspiracy is implausible? 7? 10? What's the number and what made you choose it over 6?




Words, dude. Words. This is your proof. Simple words from the murky minds of men. And now all else is proven a fabrication, including the holy words of others who dare to describe something you don't want to hear.


The fact that you only consider evidence out of context does not make all other evidence go away.

Lloyd's cab, the anomalous FDR, the undamaged foundation, the anomalous east of river flight path, the anomalous initial damage, are all evidence that supports a deception and fatally contradicts the official story. The list goes on an on.







Oh it's not the only thread I got, just the one I'm trying to strangle you with right now. I',m still waiting for a convincing reason why coordinated misinformation is so incredibly unlikely. You're a logical guy, you shoud be able to explain it better than that. If they did their plane crash right, there are there are other reasons for them to promote a false theory later. FOR EXAMPLE to sow division in the movement. To practice the technique for future use. For twisted amusement. It's also possible that mistruth has crept in by some organic snowball effect. Lagasse says north for whatever reason, spends some tiime online... others read the posts, see your video, and decide to play along when you come-a-calling. Etc.


How could Lagasse have seen our video before we talked to him since he is feature in our video?

CIT did not even exist UNTIL we obtained the north side evidence.

You are mischaracterizing the evidence, twisting the claims, taking information out of context, and minimizing the scope of the very conspiracy you are asserting.

The north side evidence actually exposes the missile theory as disinfo which was in full effect.

It focuses attention on the flight path and we have A LOT more evidence other than the citgo witnesses showing it to be irreconcilable with the official story.

This is starting to get ridiculous.

Your neutralization and doubt casting efforts have been kicked into warp speed out of pure desperation and you are going full force without support from ANYONE at the pure peril of any remote credibility you might have as a rational critical thinker.




This is what I mean by 'murky minds.' It's a problem with withnesses, especially in high profile cases. And you refuse to acknolwedge this, readin these guys like you would a seismograph. Can such bad methodology really be an accident?


Except that you are NOT postulating ANYTHING that has to do with "murky minds". Why are you mixing up your claims?

There is nothing "murky" about a coordinated disinfo campaign featuring gas station attendants, mechanic, police officers, couriers, and heliport controllers or ANYONE who was in a position to tell what side of the station that plane flew.

The extreme complexity of what you are suggesting is simply too much to entertain in regards to the extremely weak motive of "sowing confusion" that you suggest.

Especially since there is plenty enough confusion sown as it is and the truth movement is virtually ignored by the mainstream all these years later.

People like you are already doing that work for them at no risk at all.




You, and the PentaCon phenomenon, and this thread, may be the evidence.


Ahhhh ok....

So now you are finally stepping up to the plate and calling us out as part of the conspiracy?

Turn us in big guy.

Have us and all the witnesses brought in for questioning because if your conspiracy is true it proves 9/11 an inside job.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
CL, let me respectfully echo Craig's statement " You are suggesting an outrageous, illogical, unneeded, and completely UNSUPPORTED wild speculative scenario based on zero evidence."

I have tried to understand where you are coming from but I haven't had any success.

Craig has evidence and logic backed up with video.

Let me respectfully suggest that you conclude this debate with whatever credibility you can. Which is none in my opinion.

I would like to respectfully say that you have "fought the good fight" but the fact is you never even came close.

You did, however, show up. I've will hand that to you.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
quick question

where is the evidence of a missile ? pictures of fragments ? pentagon employees stating they saw missile fragments ? military personnel saying they launched it ?

the conspiracy theorists have the burden to prove it was a missile.

It seems like 6 years later, without a shred of evidence, you are reduced to arguing over debating semantics

maybe that should be a hint ?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


CIT already disproved the missile theory.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Craig, John, I realize I've stepped over a certain threshold here. But I've stated my case. Take it as you will. There is no point arguing it further. In fact I was just popping in to do so, we seem to be on the same wavelength John.


Craig, yes, you have made a well-crafter case based on rigorously gathered real data analyzed by a method at least party scientific. And it's true that my theory is pure speculation with no proof and only circumstantial evidence that places it somewhere on the credibility spectrum. That's it. I just wanted to talk about it some more.

Happy Thanksgiving guys. Hope we can all just chill and do something sould-nouriishing with family and friends. I know I can use it.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


So are you ready to record round 2 with Aldo on Wednesday next week at 3:30 or are you finally choosing to side with the more logical, reasonable, and scientific conclusion that the north side evidence is valid and committing to helping us spread the word with your blog?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Sure. Earlier actually would be better. 2:00 or 2:30 maybe?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


You simply couldn't leave for the holiday on a good note could you?

You had to lie about my claims on LCF.

Outrageous.

Deal with your dishonesty.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Keep up the good work Craig, it's now clear that Caustic Logic has an agenda.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Craig, you have done a thorough and convincing investigation here. And I look forward to your upcoming releases.

Let me respectfullly suggest that you do not repsond to anymore of CL's jibes, insults and double dealing. He's is not worth it.

Happy Thanksgiving.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Yeah you're probably right John.

This was sinking pretty low even for him.

Especially coming off the heels of lying about your claims so he could us a real pilot to cast doubt on the flight path we report.

But CIT will not stand by in the face of deliberate lies about us and our work. They do what they do because it's effective. They don't even care if they damage their credibility....their goal is simply to cast doubt, neutralize, and divert.

So we take them head on to neutralize their neutralization and the evidence always rises to the top.

The irony is that we end up getting the reputation as the aggressors when the fact is that we are only responding to the attacks and lies.

So yeah.....there is a fine line between dealing with them and ignoring them.

I think CL is starting to come unglued because we have exposed his faulty logic, dirty tactics, and the truth is closing in on him because we come so heavy with the facts and evidence.

The light always shines through regardless of how much it is surrounded by darkness.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
It has to be said that making those posts in a forum where you can't directly respond is hitting below the belt, and smacks of desperation IMO.

I have a brain, and I'm capable of free thought. No-one is making me accept anything, but the evidence is weighing heavily in favor of CIT.

Whilst the aircraft is capable of doing what it did, in the context of the final seconds of the Pentagon, this is getting ridiculous, not least for all the obstructions before the Pentagon. To suggest it could hit no less than 5 light poles and leave no part of the aircraft behind, then disappear entirely into the building without leaving anything on the lawn is absurd at best.

The lack of video evidence from the Pentagon showing clearly a 757 hitting the Pentagon (and they can't argue censorship as we see images of the aircraft hitting the WTC on TV every time it is mentioned) is highly suspect, and to even argue that it is for "legal reasons" is just plain making excuses.

There is just too much wrong with the official story for it to be right.

Happy Holidays everyone!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Caustic Logic has agreed to part 2 of this debate with my partner Aldo on Monday.

We look forward to it.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
While all the long winded details may look impressive to some (more so who already know what they think and just want something to tell them what they want to hear), iot doesn't change the facts. And the fact is that Craig is simply using the weakest form of evidence and using it to dismiss all the stronger evidence.

This is not investigation or research. Doing all the leg work to support what you want to hear, and then dismissing everything that contradicts it such as just claiming that the government probably doctored everything else (with absolutely no evidence) is simply irresponsible. And this is why Pentacon is not known outside of the small conspiracy theory community and will not be seen as a legitimate documentary.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
The debate continued with Aldo Marquis of CIT leading the discussion this time:


Google Video Link







 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join