Why would he issue a challenge with such attitude in a forum where I can't respond or in a private blog and then take comments of mine out of context to vaguely insinuate that I am asserting the fireball was created with exotic weaponry?

He conveniently left out another comment of mine where I say:

"The notion that exotic weaponry had to be used to create a semi directional fireball is insane."

The notion that exotic weaponry had to be used to create a semi directional fireball is insane.

There may have been incendiaries on the roof.

The fireball went upwards more than anything else.

Besides the fireball in the doctored video was likely enhanced anyway.

It's certainly not valid evidence worth postulating weaponry over.

The fact that a real fireball existed does NOT support the notion that this video is valid, untouched evidence.

I NEVER said that the fireball was made with exotic weaponry.

My only point was that the suspect in question who is the richest most advanced defense agency on earth has access to unknown weaponry so surely a simple fireball at their own secure and controlled headquarters in a part that had been under "renovation" for years and was relatively unoccupied would be quite simple to create.

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

Here is the rest of my original reply that he failed to include:

I have no intentions of accepting your challenge to speculate as to exactly what was weaponry was used to create a fireball and the fact that I turn down this desperate attempt to move the goal posts on your part does not prove that the suspect could not have created this fireball. It also doesn't change the fact that we have proven a military deception and that you are left accusing innocent men of mass murder based on zero evidence whatsoever to protect your 757 impact conspiracy theory.


Nobody could possibly know what kind of weaponry was used. But to go so far as to suggest this means it's impossible or even remotely unlikely that the Pentagon could have created that fireball is beyond silly.

I'm sorry but the suspect in question here has capabilities beyond what any of us could even imagine and you know this.

Not to mention there is no valid evidence of what the fireball looks like.

None.

No independent or live footage.

Only 2 dubious bad quality Pentagon security videos of virtually the same view provided by the suspect years later.

It's quite likely that the real fireball was "enhanced" but it doesn't even have to have been.

To suggest the fireball in that video defies the capabilities of the Pentagon to create without crashing a 757 is absurd.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I NEVER said that the fireball was made with exotic weaponry.

My only point was that the suspect in question who is the richest most advanced defense agency on earth has access to unknown weaponry so surely a simple fireball at their own secure and controlled headquarters in a part that had been under "renovation" for years and was relatively unoccupied would be quite simple to create.

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

I've always thought the video in question was doctored. When first released it was all of 5 seconds long and its authenticity and who exactly released it was in doubt, still is. Many have analized it and posted their findings causing further doubt in my mind.

Why no other of the videos recorded that day have been released gives rise for concern as to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Your flyover theory intrests me so I read most of your posts. Thanks and keep on diggin'.

Infinityoreilly

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I think that the "debris" you see flying up and over the building was likely added as well.

Craig, don't forget the 'intact' portion of the Pentagon which was also in the fireball!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Note how the deflgration seems to have moved into the building and against it, indicating momentum and a certain angle. A 150-foot high rolling fireball that moved against the Pentagon at about the deflection angle expected on the official heading, injecting fire into the upper floors far to the north of impact. This was not caused by eplosives-laden bricks inside the spooky renovated area.

But i remember a military witness near the Pentagon stated that a fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the back section of the plane.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But i remember a military witness near the Pentagon stated that a fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the back section of the plane.

Assuming that you are not using the term "military witness" as an oxymoron, his powers of observation must have been phenomenal considering it would have taken less than 2/5ths of a second for the airplane to enter and disappear inside the Pentagon.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Assuming that you are not using the term "military witness" as an oxymoron, his powers of observation must have been phenomenal considering it would have taken less than 2/5ths of a second for the airplane to enter and disappear inside the Pentagon.

But he states the plane did not go all the way into the Pentagon, only the nose section and to the wings, then the fireball came out of the builidng and destroyed the tail section.

Ultima is talking about Noel Sepulveda I think,

"For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it. An explosion followed."

Read too literally it's kinda silly. I think he's also the one who saw it catch a 'utility pole guidewire' and was physically knocked down by the blast. Weird account.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Oh booh-hoo, you fact distorter.

You mischaracterize my statements to erroneously associate my claims with "exotic weaponry" and I am the "fact distorter"?

You are too much.

I offered the challenge on my blog while comments were open and uncontrolled. You openly responded basically 'I decline the challenge because it's dummb and my case is proven.' Then you started going off more than I like and soapboxing it and I put the cork back in, letting comments in one at a time. So far I've let all in but the last, as its more ad hom than substance it seems. Nothing much is censored. All the others there and on the other post are still readable by all. And since you didn't seem interested in the challenge, I also took it to LCF to give your supporters there a whack at it. And again, it's not my fault you were banned from there and can't ignore the challenge over there too.

Your blog comments are not publicly displayed and it is not a neutral environment for debate.

You re-issued the challenge in a place were you could deliberately misrepresent my statements without retribution in a last ditch effort before the holiday to cast doubt on us or to make yourself feel like you have an upper hand.

I simply wouldn't stand for it and forced you to retract your lie.

Your challenge IS stupid and I am merely addressing your lies about my response.

I'm smarmy when I post as PRC? Sure it's not just the name? 'Cause when I want I can be a real smart-ass anywhere. One difference, as I'm sure you know, is the unmoderated 'wild west' quality over there compared to ATS. This is like whining to your big city cohorts about how I act over in gunsomke city where you used to prowl until the sherrif booted you. Are you just jealous that I'm still welcome in both city and town, and get to use both my manners and my trigger finger on a regular basis?

Jealous? Hardly.

I am only "banned" at LCF for censorship reasons because our research threatens the integrity of the info in Final Cut.

The fact that we are still featured in the credits is enough to prove that our contribution could not go unacknowledged despite our differences with Dylan.

You SURE DO post with a different attitude there! In a schizophrenic kind of way.

I would bet a million bucks that you would lose that attitude real quick if I was an active member.

Anyway, that's all for now. Good points or whatever, I'm sure you might be right about the fireball stuff. It's really not all that amazing a thing, even if the video shows it as-is. I just wanted to highlight another weird thing your thery requires.

It is not "weird" or a necessary thing to address since you have no valid evidence for how it behaved.

Government provided data is not valid evidence in support of their story and there is PLENTY to show (once again) that this particular data has been manipulated.

So you are making up nonsense about incendiary "catapults" based entirely on manipulated data.



Happy Thanksgiving and I look forward to your debate with Aldo on Wednesday at 3:00.

Bring your notes this time because you're going to need them.

p.s. I knew he was referring to Sepulveda but showing him what it would take to make it valid evidence was more important.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Ultima is talking about Noel Sepulveda I think,

Subject: Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:18:03 -0400
From: Press Service afisnews_sender@DTIC.MIL
Reply-To: defense-press-service-l-request@DTIC.MIL
To: DEFENSE-PRESS-SERVICE-L@DTIC.MIL

By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2003 - Many courageous military and
civilian men and women have been honored for their
actions after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But only one member of the Air Force received the
Airman's Medal, the nation's highest award for heroism
not involving combat with an enemy. He also received the
Purple Heart for his injuries.

Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda, 53, a Hispanic-
American member of the Air Force Reserve, was a medical
inspector at the Air Force Inspection Agency, Kirtland
Air Force Base, N.M. But on Sept. 11, 2001, he was
working at the Pentagon as a reserve program manager in
the Air Force Strategies and Policies Office.

As he reached his motorcycle, Sepulveda noticed the
aircraft wasn't following the normal flight path down the
Potomac River for Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. Instead, it was coming over a distant hotel,
headed in the direction of the Pentagon.

"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control,
and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda
said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started
coming down even faster and lower.

As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the
sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and
the plane popped into a 45-degree angle. The pilot tried
to recover -- go back vertical – but he hit some more
light poles.

"He dipped the plane's nose slightly, and then smashed
into the building," said Sepulveda, who was presented the
Airman's Medal and Purple Heart by Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. John P. Jumper at the Pentagon April 15, 2002.

Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then
disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the
fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon,"
Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of
fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just
coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage.
And then the fuselage was all gone."

Well Craig you appear to be seriously PO'd and rightfully so.
I find this same mentality among a vast majority of debunkers here and elsewhere.
THEY want PROOF, and specific proof.This gives them validation in their eyes or amongst their peers.If you ask them for PROOF, one gets the standard form reply "I don't have to provide any.", or something to that effect.
Many debunkers hold on to the official story of 9/11 yet can't prove it's true.Nobody has proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that a commercial jet hit the Pentagon.
Caustic Logic is indeed caustic (my own opinion) and his diatribe shows a lack of intelligent thinking or rational debate in my view.
I'm not an explosives expert but I'm willing to guess that any number of devices could cause an explosion and fireball like the one at the Pentagon.If Hollywood can do it, so can the U.S. military and/or government.
If Caustic Logic thinks a B757-223 hit the Pentagon, then perhaps he should show PROOF.A few scraps of shiny aluminum doesn't cut it.I want verifiable proof of serial numbers.I want to see both engines,all of the seats, the black boxes,wing debris etc.
I'd also like him to prove that the explosion can ONLY be caused by a 757.
I already know what the reply would be, so I tend to ignore people of his caliber.

this might seem silly... but why does the video say sept 12?

I just dont know the more I watch that recurring vid the more I notice an object on the right before the fireball that resembles not an airliner but a missile is there anyway of capturing a clear still?

Originally posted by johnnyrobbo
I just dont know the more I watch that recurring vid the more I notice an object on the right before the fireball that resembles not an airliner but a missile is there anyway of capturing a clear still?

yeah.
with a really good camera.
unfortunately, resolution cannot be "reverse engineered" with any accuracy. you can interpolate pixels, and smooth out a pic, but it gets you no closer to the actual original light reflection off object. it only makes it "nicer" for you mind's eye.