Wednesday, April 11, 2007

OBSCURED BY FOAM

OBSCURED BY FOAM: A TOO-OBVIOUS SIGN OF FRAUD
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 14 2007
Updated 4/11/07


One of my favorite tricks used by the pushers of the Frustrating Fraud is also among the oldest, but still was given its spot in the lineup for Loose Change, second Edition. Point five in their analysis of the Pentagon strike was the assertion that “the damage to the Pentagon [is] completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757,” notably in being far too small. After briefly showing a portion of the 100-foot-wide damaged area on the first floor where the plane entered, they fade to the above picture as Avery intones “the only damage to the outer wall is a single hole no more than sixteen feet in diameter.” This is certainly not the only damage, the worst of which is hidden behind the fire spray. While a sixteen foot hole can describe the central portion of that wide swathe of davastation, it also describes the incidental missing wall on the second floor, probably from the lower tailfin (the black hole with no fire inside, dead center and on floor two), which he is talking about and incorrectly cites as the entry point. [segment at 21:39 in video]

Loose Change were far from the first to push this particular technique, which has been mirrored in both Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site, as well as posted for years at the site “did Flight 77 Really Crash Into the Pentagon?” Run by the clandestinely code-named "Killtown," his/her/their page on the entry hole showed the above picture plus the one at left and asked “Is this all the damage that was done to the fa├žade?” This is the classic two-picture set-up Loose Change only hinted at; the duplication helps clarify that the first shot was no fluke - they’re purposefully showing you shots that don’t and wouldn’t show the major damage to illustrate there was none, even though other photos on other Killtown pages show clearly enough the damage hidden here, where the question about finding plane damage is not being directly posed. He/She/They bolstered the case by citing a clearly confused eyewitness: “Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible.” The site sums up by asking triumphantly and rhetorically “Where is the impact hole Flight 77 supposedly made?” Simple answer: behind the foam. This site was Last updated and still not changed on December 4 2006.

The formula Killtown’s page used is exactly the one used on Raphael Meyssan’s original Hunt The Boeing site, first posted in February 2002, even to the point of using precisely the same two photos as seen above. Meyssan had explained "the two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack,” that is in the “mysterious” and “covered-up” pre-collpase period, during which the "telltale" small hole was still visible. “They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?” As do its later imitators, the photos indeed show the precise spot, and I can still locate the damage just from memory, no thanks to the foam.

And yet so many have been unable or unwilling to take this blatant calling card at face value. It says in large enough type “hello, I’m a fraud.” No need to even read the fine print, people, their methods of deception are obvious. And yet the case built on such boldface manipulations is accepted by easy marks, and repeated ad nauseum in all manner of forum by "fraudbots" that dismiss any contrary claim as a "Bush lie." How on earth could this happen in a segment of the population that prides itself on its exceptional intelligence and skepticism?

More Examples of the foam fraud discovered recently:
- Jon Carlson: Closing the coffin on the Pentagon lies, he said: "This photo shows the A3 impact from a different perspective. The A3 knocked out 5 foot long limestone blocks leaving a clear IMPRINT. Clearly two windows frames were knocked out with associated column damage and obviously no Flight 77 Boeing 757 (or the missile some claim) went through those two 5 foot openings." He then shows a photo with a scribbled plane outline, with alleged imprints covered in fire spray.
- Cat Herder: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon (@ Above Top Secret.com) - actually arguing FOR a 757 strike, he left the dor to criticism wide open by ignoring the major impact damage and zooming in on one of the foam shots, implying the whole plane went in that 2nd floor window with n marks on either side. As should be expected, his anallysis has not quelled no-757 theorizing there.
- David Icke: Presenation - video (Youtube) Using the header shot, with the second floor damage highighted, Icke asserted it "must've been a sodding small plane, that's all I can say."
- Peter Meyer, page at Serendipity.li
- Brad May of 911review.org - on his "Batcave" page "no 757 hit the Pentagon you idiot."

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well where's your photo showing the damage? At least they had something to show.

Caustic Logic said...

The photos of the damage area are here:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/entry-wounds.html
Is the implication here that there was no such damage to show? If so that's new to me... even the dummies see a 10-20 foot round hole - hidden behind that foam - tho they disagree on which part of the 100-foot-plus damage area constitutes their missile entry hole vs. bomb damage area.

Man it's good to be back on the 'net!