Response to Arabesque's latest personal attack hit-piece against CIT

Is this guy a reincarnation of Killtown?
Why is this allowed to continue?

I am really beginning to despise the 9/11 forums.

reply to post by ferretman2



The stop reading them and go somewhere else...it is just that simple.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The sound of the plane impact and resulting silence afterwards is noted by several witnesses. Firefighter Allan Wallace was mere feet away from the impact zone at the Pentagon and described “a flash and a horrific crunch.”

Alan Wallace says some other things that support our claims. His entire first-hand account is available here.

And he alsosays some other things that more strongly again counter you. Like it being 20 feet off the ground 600 ft (4 plane-lengths) from the building - and headed to impact, so app. NOT pulling up (and it'd have to be steep).

1. He is very explicit when he claims that he did NOT see the impact of the plane.

Yup, he had turned to run from the expected low-level impact that the clear preponderance of (faked?) physical evidence indicates happened.

2. He specifically describes the plane as "white"!

As does the Pentagon security video, as might anyone or anything seeing a mostly silver plane flying fast in white sunlinght. Closer up and more under it its general reflectivity would be clearer but at a distance, and seen from about level it seems sunlght from above would prevail and you'd see a brilliant white blur.

His description of a "crunch" is a general sound could very well be from the explosives destroying the building but his description of the plane as "white" completely contradicts the official story and supports our hypothesis.


Ahem...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The FDR data is another can of worms and even the speculative flyover CIT theorists admit on their website, “The complete witness flight path that we report does not match the flight path as indicated by the FDR and we have never cited the FDR as supporting evidence that the witnesses are correct… the FDR and witness flight paths do not match each other.” The FDR is a separate controversy to deal with since as Caustic Logic explains, “The NTSB ‘animation’… is in fact at least 20 degrees off from the Black Box data it's supposed to be based on.”

Who is Caustic Logic? He sure isn't an FDR specialist! Or a pilot or an authority on ANYTHING with any credentials whatsoever. He is a janitor. He is clearly not an authority on the FDR.

But Pilots for 9/11 truth are.

Regarding FDR stuff in general I have put it largely to rest. I'm a smart enough janitor that with a little time I can underrstand anything I set my mind to. That stuff was taking too much time. But regarding this point it's clear - the animation that ALMOST matched your witnesses - in a bizarre coincidenceI guess - was 'plotted' with a final map rotation relative to 'lat-long' lines orieted to magnetic north. They didn't turn it to correct it, but the other way. I have shown this with scenes from the animation compared to FDR data. And as I showed here [Balsamo wrong again] as you should recall, your experts have yet to acknowledge this and cling to "north plot data" that doesn't exist.

However it also now seems that the last perhaps six seconds of data also do not exist, and the course change to the north is actually left open. But also this data is not reflective of the dawn-over the river loopfrom east you're constructing - er, finding - now. So this can have nothing to do with your evidence, but for I guess 'brotherly' loyalty or whyever you insist on defending Balsamo's errors and false characterizations of my sometimes right findings. So I just had to set that straight.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


The fact that you are misrepresenting the claims of Pilots For Truth out of context does not demonstrate any "errors" on their part.

They made an animation proving the FDR irreconcilable with the physical evidence that you are unable to debunk.

You are not an authority on this info, admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, refuse to directly address all of the analyses presented, and can only succeed in sowing further confusion which you are clearly willing to do at the expense of your own credibility while grossly misrepresenting our claims.

Next thing you know you'll be vaguely associating PFT with "exotic weaponry" too.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


To demonstrate ONCE AGAIN your deceptive tactics......

In your thread you just linked to you ADDED the deceptive libelous words in the link (Balsalmo wrong again) from the title that you APOLOGIZED FOR as out of line in the thread!

Me: "In light of his instant concessions and his failure to make a coherent or relevant point I move for the mods to edit the completely unjustified and totally libelous title of this thread that he ADMITTED was created to get Rob's attention."


Caustic Logic: That's probably fair. I apologize for that.

Clearly your apology was an empty LIE as you are using the same words once again to make the same point that you ALREADY conceded was incorrect.

You have no shame do you?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I did a double-take seeing the forum closed. I wondered what kind of meltdown happened. Nuclear apparently. Then I saw the threads all shuffled back into the main deck ... huh. It's got plusses and minusses, but I agree this is good for you. More attention and traffic for one.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


No meltdown at all let alone nuclear.

It was purely the result of mine and S.O.'s dialog in this thread.

We simply have a disagreement on the most appropriate "tone" used in the 9/11 debate.

I am unapologetic for CIT's aggressive response to attacks and think that a certain level of passion and anger is necessary when addressing a deadly atrocity of this nature similar to what we saw in response to the Vietnam war.

S.O. disagrees and thinks that a "civil" approach is the only way to be effective.

He took me up on my suggestion to no longer feature us if he doesn't agree with my tone.

It's all good in the hood as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT



Oh jeez... It would probably be fair to edit it but not necessary or actually, looking back, correct. They didn't chhange the name. Mostly what you got there is ne conceding too much to prevent further friction - with you, BTW.

So ... if you want to make an issue of it again, please, let's break it down, word-by-word, this libelous title:

Balsamo - wrong - again - NTSB - Map - Rotation

Where is the incorrect statement purposeefull pushed to harm Rob's reputation? Am I more likely to hear from Rob's lawyers or you from mine? Just in case you go back and edit them out I'm freezing your words here as evidence:

Clearly your apology was an empty LIE as you are using the same words once again to make the same point that you ALREADY conceded was incorrect.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Hi Caustic ~

Most of us here at ATS see right through the theories that were presented at the Pentacon forum. Thats why very few people visited that section. Now, here at the 911 Forum we are once again littered with this Pentacon rubbish that is nothing but a waste of bandwith. I for one am not happy that I have to once again sift through these garbage threads to find something worth reading. I'm thinking if you leave them alone...their threads will die out a lot faster!!

This was not the only video evidence to contradict the theory accused of video manipulation; the CITGO gas station video revealed a possible shadow of the plane with the expected time, location, speed, approximate height, and distance away from the Pentagon on the South side of the CITGO gas station. This elicited a similarly predictable reaction from Ranke, “EVEN IF they did not have to manipulate the data… you are scrutinizing data in an investigation to determine if the official story is fraud or not it makes no sense to accept this data as valid AT ALL… No legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.” While I agree with Ranke that the US government is hiding data on the Pentagon strike, his claim that the CITGO video was manipulated appears to be in contention since as Caustic Logic observes, “the findings of Russell Pickering, John Farmer, and CIT ally ‘Interpol’ are said to support this finding, though Farmer and Pickering have both lodged complaints with CIT, both during the course of Dylan’s thread, for using their findings to imply this.” Russell Pickering asked the CIT investigators, “can you please show me where I have ever claimed to believe the Citgo video to be altered? I documented a missing camera, that is true… Please do not try and deceive people that I have ever claimed the video to be altered. The more you do this kind of stuff - the more interesting this becomes.”

I claim the data has been proven manipulated which is a fact.

Whether or not the usual biased 757 impact conspiracy theorist subjects that you reference (Farmer, Pickering, Larson) have "lodged complaints" nothing that I have claimed has been debunked by you or any one of them.

But regardless.....the alleged "shadow" is inconclusive and the data is invalid evidence to support the government story since it was controlled by the government.

The fact that you fail to see this logic and continue to reference this data to support the government further reveals your agenda.

As mentioned previously, a “non-government owned” video shot taken 15 seconds after the Pentagon impact not only showed the C-130 high in the sky, it showed no plane flying over the Pentagon. Not only did no witnesses report a flyover, this video footage gives another clear example for why there would be no attempt to fly a plane over the Pentagon instead of impacting it. The government simply cannot control all witnesses and video cameras outside of the Pentagon, and any assertion to the contrary is absurd.

Yeah.....a "non-government" video that proves NOTHING!

1. You have no proof whatsoever that it was taken "15 seconds" later. Farmer made that up with no sources and you ran with it.

2. EVEN IF it was 15 seconds that would be enough time for the flyover to be out of sight. Even Caustic Logic agrees with this and said that your claim that the flyover hypothesis is "debunked" or "dead" based on this notion does not hold water.

Just based on what you have there, an obituary is premature.......I think 15 sec is plenty of time for any flyover to have disappeared. Remember it only took two sec from the Citgo, so imagine a seven times that before the camera started rolling.

You can't even get people on your team to support your hasty and deceptive proclamations of victory.


3. There is NO WAY that ANYONE can tell that it's a C-130 in that video. This is yet another assumption declared with authority by Farmer with no way to validate it whatsoever.

Basically that video proves nothing at all other than the fact that there was a smoke plume.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Exactly.

You lied when you conceded and apologized for it.

The rest of Arabesque's hit-piece is dedicated to focusing on CIT peronally and none of it addresses the evidence at all.

Our aggression is limited to responses to people who deceptively manipulate our research and claims; this primarily being Russell Pickering, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and Arabesque.

All have made public claims of support for the 757 impact theory and demonstrated a clear bias against any evidence proving otherwise.

It is a FACT that besides Russell Pickering (who has disappeared from the scene after dedicating months to discrediting us personally even BEFORE we released the north side evidence); all 3 of the others were unknown to the 9/11 truth movement until shortly AFTER we announced the north side evidence and the CITGO security video was released within a few days later.

Is their all of the sudden rise to semi-prominence through independent blogs a coincidence?

Have all of them blended in with the movement and put out convoluted, seemingly technical, yet entirely inconclusive information on a regular basis while focusing a borderline obsessive amount of time on us and our research for kicks?

If our info was so faulty they wouldn't care about it.

If they had a leg to stand on Arabesque wouldn't have incestuously referenced all of these same individuals so often in this opus of his.

No matter how you look at it it's clear that the research of CIT has elicited some HEAVY response from very focused individuals.

When looked at closely their deceptive tactics are easily spotted.

But their blogs are confusing, long, and overly technical for a reason. They simply hope to cast doubt and sow confusion.

They know they can't effectively refute the information so attacking us personally is their only recourse.

They simply want the reader to walk away scratching their head while abandoning their quest for info out of frustration.

Don't let them succeed.

The official story is now PROVEN a farce and we have even more data to present exposing exactly how this deception was carried out.

Thanks for your attention and I simply ask that you stay patient, aware, and conscious of the incredible effort underway to neutralize the information we present.

Why is this rant thread allowed to continue?All I see here is pure anger and it's turning me off the 9/11 forum area.
This back and forth "he said", "he replied" is solving absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!

I have no doubt someone will tell me to go away if I don't like it, but I usually do so before that happens.

This is NOT an attack on you Craig.I think you have the ability to be objective, so don't take these outside "attacks" as personal.I have no doubt that you and your team have worked long and hard pouring over every detail of the Pentagon scene so I can understand (somewhat) how you feel.
If you say the sky is blue, someone will come along and say it isn't and you have to accept that or ignore it.
Be the better man.Compile that data, and let nobody bring you down.Nay sayers are everywhere.Some do it in the earnest quest for knowledge and some do it just to annoy.
This is the big league my man.The onus is on you to provide answers that are hard to refute.I do support your efforts, and give you thumbs up for passion.

I believe S.O. was honestly trying to help but the words were ignored through blind anger.


I hope you take my post in the spirit in which it was intended.