It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 4
3
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Most of that response was desperately convoluted, twisty semantics piled up compound. I don't even have the energy anymore to untangle and respond to this tripe entirely. But just looking a the main Qs I had... earlier in the thread you asked for an example of you side-stepping. questions. Here is a good one.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
What proof do we have that Boger, Walter, anyone in that describes a 'bank' means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.

We don't believe Walter due to many fatal contradictions in his account. Boger describes it perfectly. Please don't lump the two together as if we give them the same level of credence.

Alright then... What proof do we have that EITHER the very credible Boger or the HIGHLY SUSPECT Walter in their descriptions of bank means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.

No but neither would it change in a fraction of a second from what he had seen earlier. Where does he say it stopped 'banking' and straightened out? How do we know it wasn't still doing that behind the trees? Did it level its wings, pull up and fly over behind the trees?

Because that is not what he describes and we know the plane was on the north side of the citgo but we also know that [...]

I'll consider that one answered. You've decided he doesn't describe a 'bank' to it in front of him, just at a distance, so it was only banking at a distance. Absence of description = *description* of absence of bank right before impact. No need to explain further.

So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.

Read his words. It is quite clear this is what he means.

The fact that you refuse his own words isn't my problem.

Also

So if you accept his "graceful bank" description as valid you must accept that it contradicts the official story.

Okay and it seems we have this answer: bank = turn and not tilt in Walter's account because it does, it's plain as day and you will keep repeating it, and it still contradicts, since it LOST its bank before Route 27 as clearly *descried.*. This point not side-stepped. Reasoning understood.

Most of this response is based on you mischaracterizing what I read Walter as seeing:
“I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure." That's about it. “Banking” then “Lining up its sights” does almost sound like two separate phases of movement, but since bank doesn’t necc. Mean turn, and ‘lining up’ could be a figure of speech for the final dive and no other evidence indicates a noticeable left turn before impact… this could in fact be a description of the 'official path.' Sorry you disagree. It's like 'north and west' isn't it?

How I read this acc't: He does not give a distance here, nor eve a right-left, but considering other evidence as well, it sounds like he saw it off to his left and ahead in a mild left bank back around the Navy Annex, probably 3-4 seconds before impact, showing belly. Straight but wings banked, probably like minus 8-12 deg over the annex. He watched as it came nearly straight into the Pentagon, descending, leveling somewhat, but still banking slightly left, and then impacted low, like about where the low impact damage does indeed match a mild left bank or tilt of –6 degrees. His description is less precise of course for many reasons… He does NOT mention the tilt-implying image of the left wing scraping the ground like others do. Know why? Yep. Those darn trees...

He is clearly describing a plane off in the distance coming out of a turn and "lining up it's sights". How you can construe that to be a 2 second event with a slight tilt at the last moment I will never know.

We talked to him in person. You didn't.

Ah the talkie talkie magic. Now you have magical voodoo insights into just what he saw and just what he means when he says this or that, magic that cannot be explained or shared with mere mortals like me. Got it. I may as well stop trying.

Gathering the evidence does not give you the right to abuse it however you like and pretend your misreading is the ONLY reading and everyone else is either stupid or lying who disagrees.

His brain would not have ANY time to think the plane was normal traffic on the official flight path.

Wow, that’s interesting. Tell me, how much time DOES it take for a person, or Walter in particular, to think if a flight path is normal? How much too quick was this event?

And since we're keeping this in the vs. thread, I have a general Q for you. You mentioned Paik's earlier interview w/Pickering present. I hear Robert Turcios gave an earlier recorded interview before his video-taped one. Is this available for the public to hear? Do you have a copy you can share in the interests further verification of your scientific and open process?

I have no idea where you heard that but it is not true.

Turcios did not give an earlier recorded interview before his video taped one.

Just a rumor then I guess, but attributed to a knowledgeable source. It’s from a site you know and certainly loathe (does NOT start with J). They do make some other mistakes as well. There was an implication he had earlier said he was inside the station at the time of the crash rather than under the canopy and up on the mound seeing the pull-up as he showed you guys.

Okay simple Q then: When was your interview w/Robert taped? It looks kinda Novemberish?

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:42 PM
Robert NEVER said he was in the station or anything differently than what he relayed on video tape.

Plus his manager was the one who told all of us about his account on the first trip and she ALSO said he was outside filling up the water verifying his account 100%.

She KNEW Robert was a witness to the plane and she KNEW that he was not in the station at the time because she WAS in the station at the time.

She told this to me, Aldo, Russell, and Dylan.

So either she is in on your disinfo conspiracy too or else Robert lied to her on 9/11 and to everyone else he has told about his account.

The rest of your post isn't worth my time.

I have a new full feature presentation to finish up.

I'm done with you.

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:49 PM

The wisdom lies not in assuming that the official story is true: If anyone can look at all the combined ' inexplicable anomalies ' that are associated with just the Pentagon ' attack ' and still have any doubt about whether or not a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon, then in my opinion that person does not have the requisite skills of critical thinking and the ability to discern odds very well, and is thus an unreliable commentator.

Alright, you are entitled to your opinions, and I apologize for taking your earlier words personally or you seriously, seeing how your other opinions are unfounded third-hand rumors passed from hoaxster to hoaxster to gullible hoaxee like yourself. You seem to be honest and well-intentioned but clueless.

In addition to the witness statements, we also have NO jet parts displayed outside or inside the Pentagon. NO suitcases, no bodies of the passengers being collected ( no bodies were collected except for those that were in the Pentagon before the explosions. NO HOLES from the two massive engines, and no photos that show two engine parts. This goes on and on ad nauseum until no sound mind could possible swallow the fairy tale that is the official story.

[sarcasm]And don't forget some witnesses reported a missile, even Rumsfeld! And some saw a Global Hawk! It was launched off a submarine and then fired the missile, and a plane can't pierce 6 solid steel walls. Yes, it's all kinds of unlikely after a few hundred internet articles. [/sarcasm]

So, Mr. Larson, next time you make grand asusmptions that defy ALL logic, be honest enough to admit that the odds are so far from being with you that they are beyond your horizon and past the limits of believability. To believe the officla story is like believing a kid that has his hand caught in the cookie jar and stand there and says: " What cookie jar ?" Bold lies and insane imaginings may convince those unwilling to look beyond their noses, but no one else.

Thanks for the opinions and advice. I'll keep them in mind.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The rest of your post isn't worth my time.

I have a new full feature presentation to finish up.

I'm done with you.

I put a lot of time into untangling that, man. Ah well, you gotta draw the line somewhere and where you've run out of spin seems as good a place as any. I was hoping for at least one more full rotation but... Anyway, get to work, I look forward to seeing your new ... movie. It's got Wheelhouse, doesn't it? Should be good.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:11 PM
Just a little update on the ongoing "debate" between CIT/PFT and Caustic Logic.

Since the release of our latest full length feature presentation The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off there has been very little to virtually no response from CL and he has opted instead to continue to try and cast doubt on the citgo witnesses and us personally by quote mining for statements from us and PFT before CIT even existed.

In fact he has even admitted on his blog that he has an ego driven "obsession" with us!

"No, I'm not threatened, just strangely obsessed with debunking you claims....."

[...]

"I'm just doing this because ___ fill it in yourself since you can't ever know anyway. Selfish reasons to be sure, my own ego."

Both quotes come from the comments section of this blog.

Pretty crazy isn't it?

At least now we know he is not fully dishonest.

At any rate, while virtually ignoring the plethora of new evidence we have provided he has chosen to continue to make the case that the citgo witnesses are all deep cover planted disinfo operatives who deliberately LIED about what they saw on camera in order to throw people off track from the......ummm.......official story?

This part of his theory I am a bit hazy on since there is no real motive or logic behind it.

Nevertheless it is what he maintains to this day. I imagine it's because he knows there is no other way for him to honestly dismiss the conclusive data that we present.

Of course his theory requires heliport control tower employee Sean Boger, courier Levi Stephens, Edward Paik, and even Terry Morin up at the Navy Annex to ALL be in on this little conspiracy within a conspiracy.

When you have to go this far to deny evidence proving that 9/11 was an inside job it is not surprising to me that he doesn't even want to TOUCH the equally as explosive and conclusive evidence we have proving the plane came from east of the river.

I swear keeping up with Larson's spin can make a guy dizzy!

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:20 PM
Hey you two,

What about the a government expert that went on record, even video?

Do we discount his expertise and years in the field of imagery analysis?

General Stubblebine Image Expert "Plane Does not Fit" Pentagon

Imagery intelligence officer that measured photos as a career and says a plane does not fit the hole.

How can people dispute an expert with credentials like his?

United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Realtruth]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:37 PM

Sorry I couldn't give you a favorable answer!

See my response regarding Stubblebine here.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:15 PM
You must persist, eh?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just a little update on the ongoing "debate" between CIT/PFT and Caustic Logic.

In fact he has even admitted on his blog that he has an ego driven "obsession" with us!

[...] from the comments section of this blog.

Pretty crazy isn't it?

Oh NOW you'll link direct to my 'disinfo.'

And you of course are driven by nothing other than noble honesty as we've seen time an again, eh? Look at it this way... whatever MY reasons, it changes nothing about YOU. That was my point. MY motives become an issue almost exactly when you have nothing else to fall back on. I've seen it, can document. I make a bad point, you call me on it. He's wrong! Here's why. Then I consider thhat, reformulate and hit back... and suddenly it's 'why are you doing this? Are you an operative?'

And then it devolves...

PFT and CIT are now so confident of their facts they have resported to comments about my job, mmy kitchen, my hair, my arms. They're discussing my girlfriend's son, because they stumbled onto his Youtube account (which is my old one). Rob is even speculating that he was the Nick7261 (who I always thot was born in '61) I debated them with here at ATS last year when the kid was nine (yeah, he's smart, just too dumb to use a screen name other than his own)

This all started with this this 'attack' on a witness. Just a best-guess analysis based on what was available. A mental drill. Yet it warrants this.

Referring to using the kid's animations against me, Craig says:

ANYTHING that greasy haired fool puts on the net is fair game.

He is bankrupt on trying to counter the overwhelming evidence we have proving his precious 757 impact story false so he is resorting to quote mining in a sad effort to focus on you personally and interpret your motives.

('you' being johnd'ohx)

Anything I or Nick put up is fair game then, it is public, for people with nothing better to do. Who's bankrupt? Quote-mining? They were right on the surface, all over, and everything I've done with that is DIRECTLY related to claims openly made by yur lying brother organization. They've been caught out as have you. You're running out of spin so now it's all this... childish nonsense.

Whaddya want next? A picture of me on the toilet? Oh that's some great citizen research.

At any rate, while virtually ignoring the plethora of new evidence we have provided

WHAT????
WHAT??

he has chosen to continue to make the case that the citgo witnesses are all deep cover planted disinfo operatives who deliberately LIED about what they saw on camera in order to throw people off track from the......ummm.......official story?

Basically yes. And that you and your bros played into it eagerly. So am I to be surprised that YOU don't get it? That YOU and ROB and ALDO think it's the stupidest thing you ever heard?

So why DID they turn the map? They had the official story data right there... if they was trying so hard to convince us the plane was south of the Citgo they plant all those light poles, and operative Lloyd, and the building damage, 50 collumns meticulously blown inward, generator, planted parts... but they purposefully turn the map to show almost the real path... How many 'whistleblowers' do you need to see before you start to think 'wait, that's TOO many?'

Of course his theory requires heliport control tower employee Sean Boger, courier Levi Stephens, Edward Paik, and even Terry Morin up at the Navy Annex to ALL be in on this little conspiracy within a conspiracy.

No, Ed was just mistaken and Terry Morin? He said PARALLEL TO THE BUILDING's EDGE! Not along the edge, or over the building at an angle. He describes a path just south of and parallel to the Annex which is what ACTUALLY happened. This new effort of yours also fails.

I swear keeping up with Larson's spin can make a guy dizzy!

If you're so dizzy why haven't you fallenn down yet? Admit it - you can't really keep up. You're just bluffing through like you always have.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Caustic Logic] typos, formatting

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:28 PM

Stubblebine used to try to use psychic power to explode goats and walk through walls. I think he got so pissed he couldn't do it he's decided nothing should be able to go through any wall ever. How on earth such an expert thinks a 757 couldn't fit all its dense parts into a 90-foot-wide 15/30 foot high hole is beyond me. He's either a liar or an imbecile or both.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:32 PM
You are rambling incoherently.

You have used my picture to personally ridicule me in a public piece and deemed it "all in good fun".

Your picture was available online so now we can all put a face to your name and the gifs were simply made "all in good fun".

There is nothing "fun" about obsessively casting doubt on real evidence to cover up for mass murder with constant spin and unsupported claims.

You provide no evidence.

We provide mountains of it yet you have chosen to dedicate countless hours to spinning and casting doubt on this important information based on nothing but your ego.

It's clear this is game to you but CIT ain't playin.

Oh and yes....you have virtually ignored the east side evidence.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.

So is this clear enough?

Will you now concede that the bank Mike Walter describes contradicts the official story with his banking claim?

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM
You'd have to be blind not to!

I saw a documentary on "The Men Who Stare At Goats" - I was stunned that people in such positions could come up with such crazy ideas!

"If you can do it, can you walk through the wall for us now, on camera?"

His response was predictable:

I can't right now, no"

[edit on 18-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Will you now concede that the bank Mike Walter describes contradicts the official story with his banking claim?

As soon as you acknowledge this indicates a mild left bank.

So which is it? Do hand/arm gestures count or not? One comes from one of your own groundreaking witnesses, the other from a plated liar

"I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account. [...] He could not see the underbelly. He did not see the underbelly. He could not have seen the underbelly or a bank on the official flight path as well. This is just ONE of many fatal contradictions demonstrating how Mike Walter's statements are not truthful."

Would he be able to see the underbelly if it banked right like him and Boger describe?

Why do I bother? You're right, this isn't fun. This is getting really really old. I'm getting tired more than angry any more.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Maintain Vigilance and Calm

Moving on.....

The guy in the CIT video depicts a slight bank, quite a way away, whilst the other guy suggests it is a steeper left turn, closer in. According to the FDR data (official story), the aircraft was flying pretty much in level flight all the way into the Pentagon after it completed its 270° (or whatever it was) descending turn.

It would be quite difficult to know if the aircraft was rolling (if at all) if it was a slight roll, or even rolling due to turbulence. As it was flying so low to the buildings, there would have been turbulent air flow around them, so it certainly wasn't going to be smooth flying all the way.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:57 PM

Can we please get a count of how many witnesses saw the flyover?

Oh, and can we can an update as how many witnesses saw the impact?

MMMMhmmmm..... no need for a debate here.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by CaptainObvious]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:30 PM
captain obvious thinks that all clues must be obvious.

Go figure.

psssst.....when crimes are committed the evidence is typically and deliberately covered up.

Imagine that.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Yes, and how many people have come out to say they reported a flyover?

And how many of your witnesses of the NoC stated they witnessed the impact?

Ok... thanks. End of debate/

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:29 AM
I'm a bit less tired now...

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by Caustic Logic

Maintain Vigilance and Calm

Moving on.....

The guy in the CIT video depicts a slight bank, quite a way away, whilst the other guy suggests it is a steeper left turn, closer in.

Ooops! In that graphic Walter is showing a right bank, which conflicts with the physical evidence, other witnesses, and his own previous accounts.

And Paik's left bank gesture - you shouldn't've seen that, since I MADE IT UP acc. to Craig. The 'way away' is where he saw it passing overhead here:

Now where would a left wing tilt come into play here? I'm sure Craig would appreciate your not trying to help so much. Making this stuff seem to fit takes special skills and careful evidence selection. Not for amateurs!

And Craig: do we have a deal? Walter saw the plane banking/turning right just like Boger did while Paik saw it banking/rolling left (but not TURNING noticeably - ETA if his drawings are to be believed). Or do you care to explain why you now trust Walter's gestures more than Paik's?

Yes I did use your picture in a graphic once. Google "SantaCon" if anyone wants to see it Do you have any children Craig?

And as far as your "EoP' claims, they are too stupid to waste much time on is why I haven't debunked them in detail. First you get indignant that I obsess over your findings and am always debunking you (or trying to, as you'll say), then get indignant that I'm NOT debunking these new points? Tell ya what, start a thread just about that, all the points of evidence that you feel support the east-of-Potomac aspect and I will deal with them there.

late edit - typos

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:35 AM
Edward Paik did not notice a bank at all and he specifically says this.

This is likely because he was directly underneath the plane (as he and Terry Morin described) which would make the exact heading and "tilt" very difficult to accurately perceive.

But the fact that it was directly over them as opposed to completely on the south side of the street would be very easy to tell.

Don't you think?

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:26 AM
If the jet was overhead (or close enough) then telling roll would be very difficult, unless he was rolled over a long way.

The turn (over the Navy Annex) appears to be approx. 0.6 miles long. You wouldn't need much roll to do that, for that angle of turn over that distance.

Allowing for the jet to do a fly-over (thus meaning any reports of 500 MPH are also untrue as this is far beyond the aircrafts VMO), the jet would be traveling slower than reported, so less roll is required than if it performed the same rate of turn at a higher speed.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

new topics

3