Wednesday, December 19, 2007

CIT-CL PHONE DISCUSSIONS

CIT-CL PHONE DISCUSSIONS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 14 2007 10am
Updated 12/19 2am


Recently I agreed again to a phone debate/discussion with Aldo and Craig of Citizen's Investigative Team. This happened on page two of the comments section at my first 9/11 Blogger post. I was reacting in silliness to provocations like this:
Aldo: "Then you have the "team" that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. "John Farmer", "Arabesque", and "Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson".
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here.
I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same.
You can all laugh, but what they do is called "neutralization". This is exactly what COINTEL ,does amongst other things, like calling us "frauds", "profiteers", "liars" etc.
Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
---
Craig: "This is an information WAR and the government has the benefit of control of the media, all the power, technology, money, and methodology to manipulate and DECEIVE the masses.
This isn't MY investigation it is the TRUTH MOVEMENT'S investigation that has the momentous task of working against all of that.
By not clarifying what side of this information war you are fighting for you are by default working to defend the government.
[...]
All we are doing is figuring out ways to lift the veil of lies to uncover further proof that will help to deprogram the masses.
If you fail to understand and acknowledge this then you are a clear enemy in this information war."


The terms were set, numbers swapped, and a date of November 14, 3:30 pm agreed to chat with Aldo was agreed to. In light of my agreeing to the phone thing, Craig said "your willingness to debate us online and now this recorded call has me leaning towards you being a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque squad rather than a professional." Along the way we agreed no one would win a 'debate,' or at least we could never agree on who won, so it'd be a discussion. We also decided I'd talk with Aldo and Craig at the same time.

Craig called about 3:30 as agreed; Aldo had backed out for some reason, so the two of us talked about witnesses, logic, investigations, evidence, flyover, impact, etc. It was essentially civil, low-key. Unfortunately I was a bit tired and not too nimble on my toes, so I largely just let him talk. It's pretty boring really from my end. He calIed me wishy-washy several times and I stammered a lot. But there are interesting parts, like where he questiooned the timing of my appearance on the scene (along with Arabesque's) as they were first releasing their crucial data.

Here is CIT's posting of the first debate in video form. God, I hate my voice and sometimes my brain. Hah! You can 'see' it here - notes added are theirs of course.

[direct link]
---
And then on December 3 I followed through on round 2 with Aldo and Craig at the same time. I actually held my own a little better this time, but we still have a Kennedy-Nixon dynamic going on, where radio listeners claim Nixon won the debate while Kennedy took it hands-down with TV audiences. While we had earlier agreed not to call it a debate since both sides would simply claim they had won it, it seems that's how it's turned out anyway: Cit has posted on their "Recorded debates with Adam Larson", which they clearly feel they've won, while of course I know I won whether or not it'd be obvious just listening to the tones of triumphalism in our voices. On content and logic I win hands-down, which is why I do better onlne with all my data here and some time to think out what I'm going to say. Anyway, here it is, the only way they could trick me into re-posting their famous 4-way north-path witness montage:

[direct link]

26 comments:

Arabesque said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caustic Logic said...

I looked again, and that tree really does obstruct the view pretty fully - a flyover might be able to hide entirely back there.
Nonetheless... What's more absurd? The flyover theory that makes NO SENSE on any level or the fact that we kee taking it serously, or having to do so?

The theory only even tries to stand up and usurp the 'official story' becuase of a few curiously-coherent accounts that - if taken as true - PROVE it to be so. It cannot be argued from an evidentiary basis - it has been PROVEN by the witnesses so all else that can be mangled to fit as 'evidence' will be and the rest discarded. Building a case backwards.

And the witnesses just keep coming... he mentioned quite a few in our convo the other day. Where do they breed?

John Farmer said...

I figure I might as well jump in here since I am one of the named government agents.

Sadly, I have an open mind regarding all of this stuff, but I remain convinced that a very large plane (most likely AA77) hit the Pentagon. At the same time, there are secondary eyewitness accounts that may hint at something else in the sky north of the Citgo. I admit it is a small body of evidence but none-the-less should not be ignored.

It is sad that people like Aldo, Craig, and Rob want to scream "fly-over" and comb the internet for prey to pounce upon when evidence is presented to the contrary. I remain open to any evidence they might wish to offer and will evaluate it honestly.

But the threats, intimidation tactics, and bullying really do not make me eager to listen.

Craig said...

>>>And the witnesses just keep coming... he mentioned quite a few in our convo the other day. Where do they breed?

This is a PERFECT example of how bad you are failing to get it.

To suggest for a moment that the unconfirmed static printed words by mass media are accurate, complete, legitimate testimony/evidence, or that they represent the entire witness pool strains all notion of logic and common sense.

Both of the new north side witnesses I mentioned are in fact previously published. You know how I found them? I called them to confirm their accounts. Brilliant concept isn't it? So as it turns out the mainstream media didn't ask or report exactly where they saw the plane. Imagine that.

Both witnesses have been continuously referenced to support a 757 impact since day one.

I guess Eric Bart, Hoffman, Arabasque, someguywedontknow, Mark Roberts, and anyone else who regurgitated and linked to this same list over and over figured confirmation of details was unnecessary when investigating a world wide psychological operation of deception.

Why do you think that is?

Craig said...

Arabasque,

Not even your fellow 757 impact conspiracy theorist colleague sees legitimacy to citing the government provided DoubleTree video as "proof" against a flyover.

I have a strange feeling this will have no effect in your decision to publish that claim over and over just like you do your proven inaccurate alleged witness list compilation.

(I've never posted comments here.....why do they have to be "blog author approved"? What are you afraid of Adam? I have a feeling this one won't be approved.)

Craig said...

One other thing. We are Citizen Investigation Team, not Citizen's.

Thanks.

Arabesque said...

"But the threats, intimidation tactics, and bullying really do not make me eager to listen."

Exactly. I don't have a problem with debating fairly with someone or considering alternative theories, but when the theorist is screaming at your face insults and paranoid accusations, I think it's time to get my priorities reset to the 9/11 truth movement as opposed to the 9/11 ego glorification movement. There are many prominent 9/11 researchers who value my work, so why should I have to put up with crap like that? If I'm going to be attacked, I'm just going to stop responding.

I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong, but in my view the Double Tree video evidence apart from showing no plane, reveals the impracticality of even attempting a flyover. Granted, I am open to the possibility it might not have been able to capture the plane in such a scenario, but I doubt this considering that the fireball and Pentagon is so clearly visible. Even debating this theory gives it more credit than it deserves.

Caustic Logic said...

Craig, Craig, Craig...

>>>"This is a PERFECT example of how bad you are failing to get it."

Of course you must take that stance.

>>>"To suggest for a moment that the unconfirmed static printed words by mass media are accurate, complete, legitimate testimony/evidence, or that they represent the entire witness pool strains all notion of logic and common sense."

Absolutist language and pretty much wrong. Are the published accounts representative? Of each other yes - and consistent with many other facts. Are they representative of what you've been unearthing, anything indicating a flyover (no matter how muddled with insistence it impacted anyway)? No. Nary a flyover clue among them.

So if the original accounts are NOT representative of what people saw that day, how do you propose the flyover witnesses or whoever were screened out of the pool?

And the funny thing about dismissing published witness accounts is that's what you did at first and then found it unnecessary. You said the other day you started out wondering if there was a missile or what. Then you started confirming - which is great. And guess what? The 'unconfirmed static printed words by mass media' mentioning a 757-type plane flying twards the Pentagon and apparently impacting were actually TRUE!
Now if one is unable to or doesn't feel up to going out and confirming everything, what lesson does this share?

>>>"Both of the new north side witnesses I mentioned are in fact previously published. You know how I found them? I called them to confirm their accounts. Brilliant concept isn't it? So as it turns out the mainstream media didn't ask or report exactly where they saw the plane. Imagine that.

Both witnesses have been continuously referenced to support a 757 impact since day one."

No comment on this new evidence until I've confirmed what they say and how and thought about it a bit.

>>>"I guess Eric Bart, Hoffman, Arabasque, someguywedontknow, Mark Roberts, and anyone else who regurgitated and linked to this same list over and over figured confirmation of details was unnecessary when investigating a world wide psychological operation of deception.

Why do you think that is?"

See above.

Caustic Logic said...

Craig said...
"(I've never posted comments here.....why do they have to be "blog author approved"? What are you afraid of Adam? I have a feeling this one won't be approved.)"

I'm afraid of spam. But honestly no one's been trying lately so for now I'm turning the filter off. No typing squiggly letters even. More traffic of late, so need for me to bottleneck it, especially when I'm online less on the weekends.

Caustic Logic said...

John Farmer said:
>>>"I figure I might as well jump in here since I am one of the named government agents."

We're a team now! Did you hear? I haven't been on the same team as you since our disinfo training days at that base down south. ;)

>>>"Sadly, I have an open mind regarding all of this stuff, but I remain convinced that a very large plane (most likely AA77) hit the Pentagon. At the same time, there are secondary eyewitness accounts that may hint at something else in the sky north of the Citgo. I admit it is a small body of evidence but none-the-less should not be ignored."

Agreed. No evidence should be ignored. Nor should any plausible meaning behind that evidence be ignored.

Thanks for the comment. :)

Caustic Logic said...

And finaly I owe an apology to my other team-mate Arabesque for forgetting about the tree when he asked me what he might be missing in the DT video. I hope no embarassment came of that.

And Craig: He's on the right track - so what if some accounts don't belong or whatever? It's a big list, so a few mistakes are not such a big deal in my mind. And this plus his timing are evidence that he's a professional operative along with me and Farmer, what, sent out specifically to neutralize you? When these same perps cannot cork the flow of witnesses that give you ANY kind of credibility?

Please, those of sound mind, think on that a bit.

Craig said...

>>>But the threats, intimidation tactics, and bullying really do not make me eager to listen.


Yet here you are! Look who's "combing the internet" now. CIT simply responds to attacks. All 3 of you guys suddenly appeared in the movement around the same time shortly after CIT and the north side evidence materialized. All of you have introduced yourselves to us by DIRECTLY and publicly attacking us personally or our research. It's actually quite funny the way that most of Adam's blogs are completely ignored but this one gets all of us responding together like one big happy family. We might as well open a private chat conference because you know that nobody is reading this.

Farmer.....you are by far the creepiest of the group. Every sentence you type reeks of manipulation. It's like you simply don't have the ability to express yourself honestly or openly. Your blogs are so completely vacuous yet simultaneously pretentious. No matter how confusing and pointless you make them you simply can't hide the fact that you have ulterior motives for posting them in the first place. It's quite sad and the fact that you pop up within seconds in whatever forum your name is mentioned makes it clear that you are obsessed with the 9/11 truth movement and haven't even come close to disassociating yourself with it as you had claimed you were doing after your unprovoked irrational public blow up against us in the LC forum because I posted one of your images.



Arabasque......you only miss the title of creepiest because you lack any personality whatsoever as the hooded anonymous one. While Farmer is the king of manipulation you are the king of disingenuous spin. At least Pickering has produced SOME good research during his little 9/11 researcher stint but the crap you and Farmer put out is utterly useless. You are clearly more interested in truth movement gossip and politics then research and investigation.

Adam.......There really isn't much else I could possibly say to expose you any more! You're the only one who has been willing to at least engage me with SOME level of reason and logic although it's only been on the surface as you ultimately ignore all the points you concede. I've actually grown to like you personally a bit. Perhaps it's simply pity but I think I still have faith that logic will eventually force you to abandon this facade you put up allowing you to continue your 757 impact obsession. As far as info goes you are king convolution. Your blogs are chock full of values and formulas but devoid of any answers. I've never seen someone be able to put out so much info while saying so incredibly little.


So.....

I will now formally challenge Arabasque and Farmer to a recorded debate. Come on guys! What's there to be afraid of? Do you really think you'll do even worse than Adam did?

Craig said...

Adam,

You are talking in vague generalities again in order to avoid the specific facts.

You couldn't name one witness in our debate that supports your story but Mike Walter and you called him disinfo!

I'm sorry if you STILL fail to understand the significance of the 2nd plane cover story and the level of manipulation or "filtering" that is done via mainstream media EVERY DAY let alone for 9/11.

Whatever.

Debate me on ATS where there will be at least some readers.

This is a waste of time.

John Farmer said...

Excuse me Craig, but all I did was evaluate your witnesses against other evidence (Citgo video). I never heard of you or had any desire to until you and Aldo came to MY blog and started with insults and threats.

I don't comb the internet. But I do follow links to my blog to see what is being said about MY work. So it can be said that every thing I have engaged you idiots on has been in defense, NOT offense.

In other words, stop crying to momma because someone stands up your bully tactics.

Craig said...

You attacked the research with lies and inaccurate information so we confronted you (without insults or threats). As I said....EVERYTHING you type is for manipulation.

WE never heard of YOU until you posted the lies about our research days after it was released. Clearly you had already heard about US since you posted about our research. Liar.

You positively identified Turcios and his cart at the back pump when neither is visible or identifiable.

If you had said "perhaps" or "maybe" that would have been an honest way to post about it. But you didn't. You lied as if you have some sort of high tech video analyzing tool enabling you to tell for sure.

Then you sucked up to us and told us how great our research is and how you BELIEVE the north side testimony.

But then you had an emotional breakdown on the LCF because I used your image so you decided to publicly attack me with childish insults. You said you were disassociating yourself with the movement (and apparently had to stage an episode to do it as opposed to simply doing it) but then you kept popping up at PFT, ATS, and now here the very second your name was mentioned. Some disassociation!

What's beyond HILARIOUS is how you STILL maintain that the citgo witnesses saw "something" north of the citgo but that a 757 still flew south and hit the building! Too much. So what did they see Farmer? Was it BIGGER and LOUDER than a 757? Why would all of them specifically say they saw a passenger jet on the north side but completely miss the OTHER passenger jet on the south side? Was it on the RADES data?

Give me a break.

You know you don't believe that crap. You are simply trying to reconcile all of your past lies with your current (and pre-planned) position supporting the official story.

Pathetic.

We saw right through you from the start.

NONE of you guys have provided a SHRED of worthwhile research or investigation. Farmer was so stupid that he actually went to the CITGO and didn't even bother to talk to the manager or ANY witnesses anywhere! NONE of you guys will bother to contact witnesses. Why? Clearly you are afraid of what they will say.

Well CIT is just getting started and you guys are going to seem irrelevant and downright silly compared to the hard evidence we will present PROVING a deception.

I do have to thank you Farmer for getting your bosses to provide the RADES data. That is the ONLY significant contribution you have made. Now they are held to their word about the various flight paths and it will be quite simple to prove their pathetic attempt at a cover-up.

Arabesque said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caustic Logic said...

Thanks for the thoughts Craig. Your opinion is very important to us.

John Farmer said...

See what I mean :)

Arabesque said...

I think Craig's just jealous because no one paid money to make a professional cartoon about him.

Instead, he only has to deal with crappy cartoons made by Killtown:

http://www.wittycomics.com/comic/26846

Craig said...

I guess you and killtown think the same. Theories first, evidence second.

Caustic Logic said...

Hey, thanks for the cartoon. I never saw that. I notice Craig mentioned your hood as a feature he doesn't like.
"you lack any personality whatsoever as the hooded anonymous one."
So Craig, your arm getting tired yet holding that tray, non-anymous errand-boy?

Arabesque said...

Come on Craig, you know you're talking about yourself:

"I guess you and killtown think the same. Theories first, evidence second."

The Flyover THEORY is one with no one person or evidence suggesting it happened (except for CIT).

Valid forms of evidence are dismissed without actually addressing them ("controlled by the perps, planted, fabricated, disinfo").

I imagine it is equally possible to "debate" the fact that no planes hit the World Trade Center. These theorists similarly have NO evidence, so they reveal their desperation by resorting to childish personal attacks, accusations, and antagonism as well as calling everything that contradicts their theories as "controlled by the perps" by "casting doubt" on its validity by any propaganda techniques needed. Chief among these propaganda techniques is the use of personal attacks; the use of ad-hominem are a significant disinformation technique similarly used by the TV fakery theorists, and require a certain amount of intent.

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

The similarities are striking. How indeed are you any different from Killtown, and his TV fakery pals, as he comically suggests in that cartoon?

Craig said...

Quite simple.....

The north side evidence is proof.

Like you, killtown is an anonymous blogger who has not conducted a single interview or even bothered to go to the scene.

Like you killtown pushes a THEORY without independently confirmed direct evidence to back it up.

Unlike you I have provided proof of a military deception.

Dismissing the flyover hypothesis does not change this fact and to suggest it does is nothing but a straw man argument.

Why do you love logical fallacies so much while faking like you are a critical thinker?

Caustic Logic said...

Again - argument from provenness. We don't have to make a coherent case for all evidence - ignore most of it and focus on some spoken words that prove just really happened. All we need to know.

Going backwards like that - a little help Arabesque, what's the fancy latin phrase for that? Arguing X is proven and all non-X disproven, no matter the scale between the two classes, because X is already proven even when it isn't?

Arabesque said...

"Going backwards like that - a little help Arabesque, what's the fancy latin phrase for that? Arguing X is proven and all non-X disproven, no matter the scale between the two classes, because X is already proven even when it isn't?"

I've invented my own term for this. The "conspiracy theory method".

Conspiracy Theory Method:

· Predetermined Conclusion. Start with a conclusion and “research” the “anomalies”.
· Misinformation/Disinformation replaces legitimate evidence.
· Eyewitness Testimony: doesn’t count by default. The government controls all witnesses to the point of preventing a single one from coming forward with the truth.
· Special Pleading: ignore contradictory evidence or explanations no matter how compelling or reasonable.
· Ignore Motive: Invent convoluted theories so complicated that there would be no motive to attempt it in broad daylight in full view of witnesses and any potential photos or recordings.
· Assume all other evidence is faked. All contradictory evidence, no matter how overwhelming or compelling is dismissed as fake without corroborating proof of its fabrication. “Smoking gun” anomalies (in reality, misinformation/disinformation) disprove all other evidence.
· When all else fails rely on the tried and trusted ad-hominems along with accusations of being an “agent” for daring to question the theory—even if it is widely disagreed upon within the movement.

Every second I waste debating this "flyover" "theory" is a second I waste promoting *real* 9/11 truth. I just got emails from Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones encouraging me to submit my latest work to the Journal of 9/11 Studies and other venues for attention, because they respect the work I do for 9/11 truth. And they aren't the only ones.

Craig said...

Blah blah blah. Made up psychobabble that has no relevance to CIT or our investigation whatsoever and of course....completely IGNORES the evidence.

You are not only the king of disingenuous spin you are the king of logical fallacies. You have not offered a single argument against our data this is not based off one.

So are you going to submit your "work" anonymously or are you going to finally remove the hood?

It will seriously take away from the Journal's credibility if they publish a piece from an anonymous source.

I highly doubt Dr. Jones will do that.